69604 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Notices

subject petition. Pursuant to 46 CFR

201.74, Sea Princess Trading, Inc.

(Trading), the owner, and the Sabine

Transportation Company (Sabine), the

operator, by petition dated November 7,

2000, request a ruling that the SEA

PRINCESS, a 37,500 DWT oil tanker,

would if converted to a dry bulk carrier

in a foreign shipyard be qualified to lift

cargo reserved to privately owned

United States-flag commercial vessels

by section 901(b)(1) and 901b et seq., of

the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as

amended (Act); provided the United

States Coast Guard ruled that the vessel

so converted qualified for a coastwise

endorsement to its document of

registration pursuant to 46 App. U.S.C.

883 and 46 U.S.C. 12106.

DATES: You should submit your

comments early enough to ensure that

Docket Management receives them not

later than close of business (5 p.m. EST)

December 1, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Your comments should

refer to docket number MARAD–2000–

8292. You may submit your comments

in writing to: Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT

Dockets, Room PL–401, 400 7th St., SW,

Washington, DC 20590. You may also

submit them electronically via the

internet at

http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/. You may

call Docket Management at (202) 366–

9324 and visit the Docket Room from 10

a.m. to 5 p.m., EST., Monday through

Friday, except Federal Holidays. An

electronic version of this document is

available on the World Wide Web at

http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You

may call Frances M. Olsen, Acting

Director, Office of Cargo Preference,

(202) 366–4610. You may send mail to

Frances M. Olsen, Acting Director,

Office of Cargo Preference, Room 8118,

Maritime Administration, 400 Seventh

St., S.W., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit

Comments?

Your comments must be written and

in English. To ensure that your

comments are correctly filed in the

Docket, please include the docket

number of this document in your

comments. We encourage you to write

your primary comments in a concise

fashion. However, you may attach

necessary additional documents to your

comments. There is no limit on the

length of the attachments. Please submit

two copies of your comments, including

the attachments, to Docket Management

at the address given above under

ADDRESSES.

If you wish Docket Management to

notify you upon its receipt of your

comments, enclose a self addressed,

stamped postcard in the envelope

containing your comments. Docket

Management will return the postcard by

mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business

Information?

If you wish to submit any information

under a claim of confidentiality, you

should submit three copies of your

complete submission, including the

information you claim to be confidential

business information, to the Chief

Counsel, Maritime Administration, at

the address given above under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You

should mark ‘‘CONFIDENTIAL’’ on each

page of the original document that you

would like to keep confidential. In

addition, you should submit two copies,

from which you have deleted the

claimed confidential business

information, to Docket Management at

the address given above under

ADDRESSES. When you send comments

containing information claimed to be

confidential business information, you

should include a cover letter setting

forth with specificity the basis for any

such claim.

Will the Agency Consider Late

Comments?

We will consider all comments that

Docket Management receives before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above under

DATES. To the extent possible, we will

also consider comments that Docket

Management receives after that date.

How Can I Read the Comments

Submitted by Other People?

You may read the Petition and the

comments received by Docket

Management at the address given above

under ADDRESSES. The hours of the

Docket Room are indicated above in the

same location. You may also see the

comments on the Internet. To read the

comments on the Internet, take the

following steps: Go to the Docket

Management System (DMS) Web page of

the Department of Transportation (http:/

/dms.dot.gov/). On that page, click on

‘‘search.’’ On the next page (http://

dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four

digit docket number shown at the

beginning of this document. The docket

number for this document is MARAD–

2000–8292. After typing the docket

number, click on ‘‘search.’’ On the next

page, which contains docket summary

information for the docket you selected,

click on the desired comments. You

may download the comments.

Petition Request

Pursuant to 46 CFR 201.74, Sea

Princess Trading, Inc. (Trading), the

owner, and the Sabine Transportation

Company (Sabine), the operator, by

petition dated November 7, 2000,

request a ruling that the SEA PRINCESS,

a 37,500 DWT oil tanker, would if

converted to a dry bulk carrier in a

foreign shipyard be qualified to lift

cargo reserved to privately owned

United States-flag commercial vessels

by section 901(b)(1) and 901b et seq., of

the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as

amended (Act); provided the United

States Coast Guard ruled that the vessel

so converted qualified for a coast wise

endorsement to its document of

registration pursuant to 46 App. U.S.C.

883 and 46 U.S.C. 12106.

On April 15, 1994, the Maritime

Administrator rendered an opinion that

the tanker GOLDEN MONARCH when

converted to a bulk carrier in Korea

would not be eligible to lift preference

cargo, although the Coast Guard had

ruled that the MONARCH was eligible

for a coastwise endorsement. Aquarius

Marine Company Docket No. A–185.

MARAD’s decision was upheld by the

United Stastaes Court of Appeals for the

Second Circuit in Aquarius v. Pena, 64

F.3d 89 (2nd cir. 1985).

Trading and Sabine ask the Maritime

Administration to essentially reverse its

decision in the GOLDEN MONARCH

case.

This notice is published as a matter of

discretion, and the fact of its publication

should in no way be considered a

favorable or unfavorable decision on the

application, as filed, or as may be

amended. MARAD will consider all

comments submitted in a timely

fashion, and will take such action as

may be deemed appropriate.

By Order of the Maritime Administrator.

Dated: November 14, 2000.

Joel C. Richard,

Secretary, Maritime Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–29514 Filed 11–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–99–5734; Notice 2]

Decision That Nonconforming 1994–

1998 Land Rover Discovery MultiPurpose Passenger Vehicles Are

Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Notices 69605

ACTION: Notice of decision by NHTSA

that nonconforming 1994–1998 Land

Rover Discovery multi-purpose

passenger vehicles (MPVs) are eligible

for importation.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

decision by NHTSA that 1994–1998

Land Rover Discovery MPVs not

originally manufactured to comply with

all applicable Federal motor vehicle

safety standards are eligible for

importation into the United States

because they are substantially similar to

vehicles originally manufactured for

importation into and sale in the United

States and certified by their

manufacturer as complying with the

safety standards (the U.S. certified

version of the 1994–1998 Land Rover

Discovery), and they are capable of

being readily altered to conform to the

standards.

DATE: This decision is effective as of the

date of its publication in the Federal

Register.

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

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.

J.K. Technologies of Baltimore,

Maryland (‘‘J.K.’’) (Registered Importer

90–006) petitioned NHTSA to decide

whether 1994–1998 Land Rover

Discovery MPVs not originally

manufactured to conform to all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards are eligible for importation

into the United States. NHTSA

published notice of the petition on June

3, 1999 (64 FR 29938) to afford an

opportunity for public comment. The

reader is referred to that notice for a

thorough description of the petition.

One comment was received in

response to the notice of the petition,

from Land Rover North America, Inc.

(‘‘Land Rover’’), the United States

representative of the Rover Group, the

vehicles’ manufacturer. In this

comment, Land Rover identified several

modifications beyond those specified in

the petition that would be necessary to

conform non-U.S. certified 1994–1998

Land Rover Discovery MPVs to all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards.

Land Rover stated that non-U.S.

certified 1994–1998 Land Rover

Discovery MPVs are not equipped with

a seat belt warning lamp, and that this

component would have to be installed

for the vehicles to comply with

Standard No. 101, Controls and

Displays. Land Rover also noted that in

order to comply with Standard No. 101,

the vehicles’ instrument panel would

have to be equipped with a means for

adjusting the panel’s illumination.

Land Rover also stated that side

reflectors would have to be installed on

the vehicles to comply with Standard

No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and

Associated Equipment. Additionally,

Land Rover noted that the vehicles’

driver’s side rearview mirror would

have to be replaced with a flat glass

U.S.-model component to comply with

Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors.

Land Rover also stated that a

transmission shift interlock and ‘‘key in

ignition’’ warning system would have to

be installed for the vehicles to comply

with Standard No. 114, Theft Protection.

With respect to the requirements of

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash

Protection, Land Rover observed that air

bag systems are optional in some nonU.S. certified 1994–1998 Land Rover

Discovery MPVs. As a consequence,

Land Rover stated that some vehicles

will require those systems (including

sensors, warning lamps, air bags, air bag

ECU, and warning harnesses) to be

retrofitted, and that this may lead to

quality control and subsequent

reliability problems. Additionally, Land

Rover noted that air bag labels must be

molded into the front sun visors of nonU.S. certified 1994–1998 Land Rover

Discovery MPVs. Land Rover

additionally observed that prior to the

1997 model year, ALR/ELR seat belt

retractors were not installed in the front

and rear outboard seating positions of

non-U.S. certified Land Rover Discovery

MPVs.

Land Rover also stated that there are

significant differences between U.S.

certified and non-U.S. certified 1994–

1998 Land Rover Discovery MPVs with

respect to compliance with Standard

No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. A key

difference cited by Land Rover is the

addition of a stamped steel stiffening

saddle welded to the frame of U.S.

certified models to stiffen the fuel tank

enclosures so that they may withstand

rear impact testing to determine

compliance with the standard. Land

Rover stated that ‘‘this stamped steel

frame reinforcement is welded in place

by the chassis manufacturer while the

frame is mounted in a precise welding

jig to ensure proper alignment and

straightness.’’ Land Rover contended

that because this reinforcement is not

available through the manufacturer’s

parts system, the entire chassis on a

non-U.S. certified model would have to

be replaced to achieve compliance with

the standard. Land Rover further stated

that in addition to the frame stiffener,

there is a ‘‘unique rear cross-member

and integrally welded rear tow hitch

that must also be fitted’’ on non-U.S.

certified models to comply with

Standard No. 301.

Additionally, Land Rover stated that

because diesel powered versions of nonU.S. certified 1994–1998 Land Rover

Discovery MPVs have never been

certified for sale in the United States,

‘‘the entire fuel system including [the]

fuel tank assembly may not comply’’

with Standard No. 301. Land Rover

asserted that the petitioner must

conduct certification testing to ensure

that diesel powered models comply

with the standard before they may be

imported into the United States.

Land Rover also observed that

gasoline powered non-U.S. certified

1994–1998 Land Rover Discovery MPVs

are equipped with some fuel system

components that differ from those on

U.S. certified models. Because Standard

No. 301 compliance tests apply to the

entire fuel system, Land Rover

contended that the entire fuel system on

non-U.S. certified vehicles must be

modified so that it is materially

identical to the fuel system on the U.S.-

certified version.

Land Rover also noted that a utility

vehicle warning label must be affixed to

the driver’s sun visor of non-U.S.

certified 1994–1998 Land Rover

Discovery MPVs to meet the

requirements of 49 CFR 575.105,

Vehicle Rollover. Additionally, Land

69606 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Notices

Rover contended that the owners

manual supplied with non-U.S. certified

1994–1998 Land Rover Discovery MPVs

must be replaced with the version

supplied with U.S. certified models,

because that version contains several

Federally required messages and

warning statements.

Concluding its comments, Land Rover

contended that non-U.S. certified 1994–

1998 Land Rover Discovery MPVs are

ineligible for importation into the

United States because those vehicles are

equipped with a chassis that differs

significantly from the one on their U.S.-

certified counterparts, and that the

chassis ‘‘cannot be properly modified.’’

NHTSA accorded J.K. an opportunity

to respond to Land Rover’s comments.

In its response, J.K. stated, with respect

to the Standard No. 101 compliance

issues raised by Land Rover, that it will

replace the entire instrument cluster

during conversion with one that

includes all U.S.-model parts and

associated systems, including the

seatbelt warning systems and adjustable

instrument illumination control. With

respect to the Standard 108 issue raised

by Land Rover, J.K. stated that it will

change the bumper ends in the

conversion process, and that the U.S.

model ends it will install are equipped

with marker lights. J.K. additionally

stated that all vehicles will be inspected

for compliance with Standard No. 111 at

the time of importation, and that U.S.

model mirror systems will be installed

if necessary during the conversion

process. Similarly, J.K. stated that all

vehicles will be inspected for

compliance with Standard No. 114 at

the time of importation, and that a

transmission interlock switch, which

incorporates the key warning microswitch, will be added to vehicles

lacking that device.

J.K. also stated that all vehicles will

be inspected for compliance with

Standard No. 208 at the time of

importation, and that all parts necessary

to achieve compliance with that

standard will be added during the

conversion process. J.K. noted that all

parts necessary to conform the vehicles’

air bag system to the standard are

available through dealers or the original

equipment manufacturer, including

sensors, warning lamps, air bags, air bag

ECU, and warning harnesses. J.K. also

stated that air bag labels will be attached

to the front sun visors during the

conversion process, and that ALR/ELR

seat belt retractors will be fitted in 1996

and earlier model year vehicles.

With regard to the Standard No. 301

compliance issues raised by Land Rover,

J.K. stated that all frame modifications

made by the manufacturer to achieve

compliance with that standard can be

accomplished in a similar manner

during conversion, using a precise

welding jig to ensure proper alignment

and straightness during installation.

Likewise, J.K. asserted that the rear

cross-member and integrally welded

rear tow hitch receiver modifications

applied by the manufacturer can be

accomplished during conversion. J.K.

also stated that during conversion, all

fuel system components will be

replaced with U.S. model components

to meet EPA requirements, and

modified to the same material condition

as those on the U.S. certified vehicle.

J.K. also stated that all required manuals

and labels are added during the

conversion process.

NHTSA believes that J.K.’s response

adequately addresses the issues that

Land Rover has raised regarding the

petition. NHTSA further notes that the

modifications described by J.K. would

not preclude non-U.S. certified 1994–

1998 Land Rover Discovery MPVs from

being found ‘‘capable of being readily

altered to comply with applicable motor

vehicle safety standards.’’

NHTSA has accordingly decided to

grant the petition.

Vehicle Eligibility Number for Subject

Vehicles

The importer of a vehicle admissible

under any final decision must indicate

on the form HS–7 accompanying entry

the appropriate vehicle eligibility

number indicating that the vehicle is

eligible for entry. VSP–338 is the

vehicle eligibility number assigned to

vehicles admissible under this notice of

final decision.

Final Decision

Accordingly, on the basis of the

foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides that

1994–1998 Land Rover Discovery MPVs

that were not originally manufactured to

conform to all applicable Federal motor

vehicle safety standards are

substantially similar to 1994–1998 Land

Rover Discovery MPVs originally

manufactured for importation into and

sale in the United States and certified

under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and are capable

of being readily altered to conform to all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards.

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: November 13, 2000.

Marilynne Jacobs,

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety,

Compliance.

[FR Doc. 00–29420 Filed 11–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Submission for OMB

Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency (OCC), Treasury.

ACTION: Submission for OMB review;

comment request.

SUMMARY: The OCC, 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 a continuing information

collection, as required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995. The OCC may

not conduct or sponsor, and a

respondent is not required to respond

to, an information collection that has

been extended, revised, or implemented

unless it displays a currently valid

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) control number. Currently, the

OCC is soliciting comments concerning

an extension, without change, of an

information collection titled Financial

Subsidiaries and Operating

Subsidiaries. The OCC also gives notice

that it has sent the information

collection to OMB for review.

DATES: You should submit your

comments to both OCC and the OMB

Desk Officer by December 18, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You should send your

comments to the Communications

Division, Attention: 1557–0215, Third

Floor, Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency, 250 E Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20219. In addition, you

can send comments by facsimile

transmission to (202) 874–5274, or by

electronic mail to

regs.comments@occ.treas.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You

may request additional information, a

copy of the collection, or a copy of the

supporting documentation submitted to

OMB by contacting Jessie Dunaway or

Camille Dixon, (202) 874–5090,

Legislative and Regulatory Activities

Division (1557–0215), Office of the

Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OCC

is proposing to extend OMB approval of

the following information collection:

Title: Financial Subsidiaries and

Operating Subsidiaries.

OMB Number: 1557–0215.

Form Number: None.

Abstract: This submission covers an

existing regulation and involves no