42156 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 1997 / Notices

due to the previous removal of the

siding.

BS–AP–No. 3433

Applicant: Soo Line Railroad

Company, Mr. M. S. Hanson, District

Manager Engineering Services,

Canadian Pacific Railway, 105 South

5th Street, Box 530, Minneapolis,

Minnesota 55440.

The Soo Line Railroad Company seeks

approval of the proposed

discontinuance and removal of the

automatic block signal system, on the

single main track, between Preston

Interlocking and Belt Junction

Interlocking, and Belt Junction

Interlocking and Spring Hill

Interlocking, near Terre Haute, Indiana,

on the Latta Subdivision, including

installation of fixed approach signals.

The reason given for the proposed

changes is to eliminate facilities no

longer required for present day

operation, as the only freight service on

the line is one local, six days a week.

BS–AP–No. 3434

Applicants: South Kansas &

Oklahoma Railroad and Kansas Eastern

Railroad, Mr. David L. Buccolo, Vice

President Rules and Safety, 315 West

Third, Pittsburg, Kansas 66762.

The South Kansas & Oklahoma

Railroad (SKOL) and the Kansas Eastern

Railroad (KE) jointly seek approval of

the proposed discontinuance and

removal of automatic interlocking

signals 1553 and 1554, at Cherryvale,

Kansas, where a single main track of the

SKOL, Tulsa Subdivision, milepost

155.6, crosses at grade, a single main

track of the KE, Neodesha Subdivision,

milepost 386.8. The proposal includes

removal of the automatic gate

mechanism, retaining a manual gate to

be left lined for the last train movement.

The reasons given for the proposed

changes are that the equipment is

antiquated and replacement parts are

almost impossible to obtain, it will

reduce unnecessary maintenance

expense, train operations in the area

have changed and SKOL and KE are

now joint operating lines, and also help

avoid delays and unnecessary blockages

of the highway road crossings in the

area.

Any interested party desiring to

protest the granting of an application

shall set forth specifically the grounds

upon which the protest is made, and

contain a concise statement of the

interest of the protestant in the

proceeding. The original and two copies

of the protest shall be filed with the

Associate Administrator for Safety,

FRA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Mail

Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 within

45 calendar days of the date of issuance

of this notice. Additionally, one copy of

the protest shall be furnished to the

applicant at the address listed above.

FRA expects to be able to determine

these matters without an oral hearing.

However, if a specific request for an oral

hearing is accompanied by a showing

that the party is unable to adequately

present his or her position by written

statements, an application may be set

for public hearing.

Issued in Washington, DC on July 29, 1997.

Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety

Standards and Program Development.

[FR Doc. 97–20515 Filed 8–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. 97–049; Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for

Decision That Nonconforming 1988–

1989 Audi 80 Passenger Cars Are

Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for

decision that nonconforming 1988–1989

Audi 80 passenger cars are eligible for

importation.

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt

by the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) of a petition

for a decision that 1988–1989 Audi 80

passenger cars 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 September 4, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket number and notice number,

and be submitted to: Docket Section,

Room 5109, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St.,

SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket

hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.].

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)

(formerly section 108(c)(3)(A)(i)(I) of the

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle

Safety Act (the Act)), 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 (formerly section 114 of the Act),

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.

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.

Champagne Imports, Inc. of Lansdale,

Pennsylvania (‘‘Champagne’’)

(Registered Importer 90–009) has

petitioned NHTSA to decide whether

1988–1989 Audi 80 passenger cars are

eligible for importation into the United

States. The vehicles which Champagne

believes are substantially similar are

1988–1989 Audi 80 passenger cars that

were manufactured for importation into,

and sale in, the United States and

certified by their manufacturer as

conforming to all applicable Federal

motor vehicle safety standards.

The petitioner claims that it carefully

compared non-U.S. certified 1988–1989

Audi 80 passenger cars to their U.S.

certified counterpart, and found the

vehicles to be substantially similar with

respect to compliance with most Federal

motor vehicle safety standards.

Champagne submitted information

with its petition intended to

demonstrate that non-U.S. certified

1988–1989 Audi 80 passenger cars, as

originally manufactured, conform to

many Federal motor vehicle safety

standards in the same manner as their

U.S. certified counterparts, or are
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 1997 / Notices 42157

capable of being readily altered to

conform to those standards.

Specifically, the petitioner claims that

non-U.S. certified 1988–1989 Audi 80

passenger cars are identical to their U.S.

certified counterparts with respect to

compliance with Standards Nos. 102

Transmission Shift Lever Sequence

* * * *, 103 Defrosting and Defogging

Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and

Washing Systems, 105 Hydraulic Brake

Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 109 New

Pneumatic Tires, 113 Hood Latch

Systems, 116 Brake Fluid, 124

Accelerator Control Systems, 201

Occupant Protection in Interior Impact,

202 Head Restraints, 203 Impact

Resistance for the Driver from the

Steering Control System, 204 Steering

Control Rearward Displacement, 205

Glazing Materials, 206 Door Locks and

Door Retention Components, 207

Seating Systems, 209 Seat Belt

Assemblies, 210 Seat Belt Assembly

Anchorages, 212 Windshield Retention,

216 Roof Crush Resistance, 219

Windshield Zone Intrusion, and 302

Flammability of Interior Materials.

Petitioner also contends that non-U.S.

certified 1988–1989 Audi 80 passenger

cars are capable of being readily altered

to meet the following standards, in the

manner indicated:

Standard No. 101 Controls and

Displays: (a) Substitution of a lens

marked ‘‘Brake’’ for a lens with a

noncomplying symbol on the brake

failure indicator lamp; (b) installation of

a seat belt warning lamp that displays

the appropriate symbol; (c) recalibration

of the speedometer/odometer from

kilometers to miles per hour.

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective

Devices and Associated Equipment: (a)

Installation of U.S.-model headlamp

assemblies; (b) installation of U.S.-

model sidemarker/reflector assemblies;

(c) installation of U.S.-model taillamp

assemblies; (d) installation of a high

mounted stop lamp.

Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and

Rims: Installation of a tire information

placard.

Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirror:

Replacement of the convex passenger

side rearview mirror.

Standard No. 114 Theft Protection:

Installation of a warning buzzer

microswitch and a warning buzzer in

the steering lock assembly.

Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash

Protection: (a) Installation of either a

U.S.—model seat belt in the driver’s

position, or a belt webbing actuated

microswitch inside the driver’s seat belt

retractor; (b) installation of an ignition

switch actuated seat belt warning lamp

and buzzer. The petitioner states that

the vehicles are equipped with a

combination lap and shoulder restraint

that adjusts by means of an automatic

retractor and releases by means of a

single push button at each front

designated seating position, with a

combination lap and shoulder restraint

that releases by means of a single push

button at each rear outboard designated

seating position, and with a lap belt in

the rear center designated seating

position.

Standard No. 214 Side Impact

Protection: Installation of reinforcing

beams.

Standard No. 301 Fuel System

Integrity: Installation of a rollover valve

in the fuel tank vent line between the

fuel tank and the evaporative emissions

collection canister.

The petitioner also states that a

vehicle identification number plate

must be affixed to non- U.S. certified

1988–1989 Audi 80 passenger cars to

meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part

565.

Additionally, the petitioner states that

the bumpers on non-U.S. certified 1988–

1989 Audi 80 passenger cars must be

reinforced to comply with the Bumper

Standard found in 49 CFR part 581.

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the petition

described above. Comments should refer

to the docket number and be submitted

to: Docket Section, National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, Room

5109, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590. It is requested

but not required that 10 copies be

submitted.

All comments received before the

close of business on the closing date

indicated above will be considered, and

will be available for examination in the

docket at the above address both before

and after that date. To the extent

possible, comments filed after the

closing date will also be considered.

Notice of final action on the petition

will be published in the Federal

Register pursuant to the authority

indicated below.

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: July 30, 1997.

Marilynne Jacobs,

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

[FR Doc. 97–20521 Filed 8–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. 97–048; Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for

Decision That Nonconforming 1990–

1994, 1996 and 1997 Saab 900 SE

Passenger Cars Are Eligible for

Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for

decision that nonconforming 1990–

1994, 1996 and 1997 Saab 900 SE

passenger cars are eligible for

importation.

SUMMARY: This document announces

receipt by the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a

petition for a decision that 1990–1994,

1996, and 1997 Saab 900 SE passenger

cars 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 September 4, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket number and notice number,

and be submitted to: Docket Section,

Room 5109, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St.,

SW., Washington, DC 20590. (Docket

hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.)

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