Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Notices 10617

VEHICLES CERTIFIED BY THEIR ORIGINAL MANUFACTURER AS COMPLYING WITH ALL APPLICABLE CANADIAN MOTOR

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS—Continued

Number Vehicles

All multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 4536 kg. (10,000 lbs.) or less that were manufactured on

or after September 1, 1993, and before September 1, 1998, and that, as originally manufactured, comply with FMVSS Nos. 202,

208, and 216;

All multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 4536 kg. (10,000 lbs.) or less, that were manufactured on

or after September 1, 1998, and before September 1, 2002, and that, as originally manufactured, comply with the requirements

of FMVSS Nos. 202, 208, 214, and 216.

VSA–82 .... All multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR greater than 4536 kg. (10,000 lbs.) that are less than 25

years old.

VSA–83 .... All trailers, and all motorcycles that are less than 25 years old.

Readers should note that in the

preparation of this list, some changes

were made from the language used in

some prior import eligibility decisions.

For example, prior eligibility decisions

generally identify multipurpose

passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses

that are eligible for importation as those

‘‘certified by their original manufacturer

to comply with [specified standards] to

which they would have been subject

had they been manufactured for sale in

the United States.’’ For the sake of

clarity, the above list identifies eligible

vehicles as those ‘‘that, as originally

manufactured, comply with’’ specified

standards. Although this language

replaces text that was previously used

only in decisions pertaining to

multipurpose passenger vehicles,

trucks, and buses, it is also being used

in the list to describe passenger cars that

must comply with specified standards

to be eligible for importation. This is

being done to achieve consistency in the

description of vehicles eligible for

importation, and to better reflect the

agency’s intent when it made the

pertinent eligibility decisions.

Readers should also note that NHTSA

is proposing to assign different vehicle

eligibility numbers to multipurpose

passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses,

based on whether their gross vehicle

weight rating (GVWR) is greater than, or

at or below, 4536 kg. (10,000 lbs.). This

proposal reflects the agency’s awareness

that there are differences between

Canadian and U.S. standards that apply

to multipurpose passenger vehicles,

trucks, and buses with a GVWR at or

below 4536 kg., but that these

differences do not exist for vehicles of

the same class that are above that weight

rating.

Because of these proposed

modifications to the text of its prior

import eligibility decisions, NHTSA

believes there is a need to replace the

existing vehicle eligibility number,

VSA–1, that is now applied to all

eligible vehicles certified by their

original manufacturer as complying

with all applicable CMVSS. The agency

proposes to replace this single eligibility

number with four separate numbers,

based on vehicle classification, and, in

the case of multipurpose passenger

vehicles, trucks and buses, by weight.

This will allow for easier modification

in the event that there are any future

changes in the standards that affect only

certain classes of vehicles.

Comments

Section 30141(b) of Title 49, U.S.

Code requires NHTSA to provide a

minimum period for public notice and

comment on decisions made on its own

initiative consistent with ensuring

expeditious, but full consideration and

avoiding delay by any person. NHTSA

believes that a minimum comment

period of 30 days is appropriate for this

purpose. Interested persons are invited

to submit comments on the tentative

decisions described above. It is

requested, but not required, that five

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 NHTSA’s final decision will

be published in the Federal Register

pursuant to the authority indicated

below.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A),

(a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegation

of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Issued on: March 4, 1997.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–5726 Filed 3–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

[Docket No. 97–014; Notice 1]

Accuride Corporation; Receipt of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

Accuride Corporation (Accuride) has

determined that certain one-piece,

tubeless aluminum dual wheels fail to

conform to the requirements of 49 CFR

571.120, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, ‘‘Tire

Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles

Other Than Passenger Cars,’’ and has

filed an appropriate report pursuant to

49 CFR Part 573, ‘‘Defect and

Noncompliance Reports.’’ Accuride 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 CFR

Part 556 and does not represent any

agency decision or other exercise of

judgment concerning the merits of the

application.

FMVSS No. 120, Paragraph 5.2, Rim

Marking, states that ‘‘On or after August

1, 1977, each rim or, at the option of the

manufacturer in the case of a

singlepiece wheel, wheel disc shall be

marked with the information listed in

paragraphs (a) through (e) of this

paragraph, in lettering not less than 3

millimeters high, impressed to a depth

or, at the option of the manufacturer,

embossed to a height of not less than

0.125 millimeters. The information

listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) of

this paragraph shall appear on the

weather side. In the case of rims of

multipiece construction, the

information listed in paragraphs (a)

through (e) of this paragraph shall

appear on the rim base and the

information listed in paragraphs (b) and

(d) of this paragraph shall also appear

on each other part of the rim.’’

Accuride’s description of the

noncompliance follows:
10618 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Notices

The motor vehicle equipment in issue

are Accu-Forge 22.5 & 24.5×8.25 inch

15° Drop Center, One-piece, Tubeless

Aluminum Dual Wheels, produced by

Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical

Corporation at its Erie, Pennsylvania,

forging plant and machined at Ultra

Forge, Inc. at Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio,

were misstamped on the marking of the

rim. The symbol ‘‘DOT’’ and the

designation which indicates the source

of the rim’s published nominal

dimensions, in this case ‘‘T’’ were not

included. All other stampings specified

by FMVSS 120 and by Accuride,

including the part number and the

loading rating, were correctly stamped

on the product.

Accuride provides the following

information in support of its petition:

‘‘1. Accuride Corporation is a Delaware

corporation and is a subsidiary of Phelps

Dodge Corporation. Accuride is

headquartered in Henderson, Kentucky and

is a major manufacturer of truck rims and

wheels.

‘‘2. The motor vehicle equipment in

question are a small number of Accu-Forge

22.5 & 24.5×8.25 inch, 15° drop center, onepiece tubeless dual wheels produced by

Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation

at its Erie, Pennsylvania forging plant and

machined at Ultra Forge, Inc. in Cuyahoga

Falls, Ohio. In issue are an estimated 478 of

the total 1,256 wheels of this size produced

between January 6, 1997 and January 10,

1997. Six wheels manufactured December 23,

1996 were also stamped during this time

frame. The non-compliance relates to the

mis-stamping of the marking of the rim. The

symbol ‘‘DOT’’ and the designation which

indicates the source of the rim’s published

nominal dimensions, in this case ‘‘T’’, were

not included. All other stampings and

markings required by FMVSS 120 and

Accuride, including the part number and

load rating, are correctly identified on each

of the components in questions.

‘‘3. The rim marking is for information

only and there is no safety-related issue

potentially arising from the exclusion of

these symbols on the wheels.’’

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments on the application of

Accuride, 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, D.C.,

20590. It is requested but not required

that six 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: April 7, 1997.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegation of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on: March 3, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–5720 Filed 3–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

[Docket No. 97–113; Notice 1]

General Motors Corporation; Receipt

of Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

General Motors Corporation (GM) has

determined that certain of its 1996 J/L/

N model cars fail to comply with the

requirements of 49 CFR 571.101,

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

(FMVSS) No. 101, ‘‘Controls and

Displays,’’ and has filed an appropriate

report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573,

‘‘Defect and Noncompliance

Information Report.’’ 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 CFR

Part 573 and does not represent any

agency decision or other exercise of

judgment concerning the merits of the

application.

Paragraph S5.3.5 of FMVSS No. 101

requires that sources of illumination

forward of a transverse vertical plane

4.35 inches rearward of the manikin

‘‘H’’ point, with the driver’s seat in its

rearmost driving position, that are not

used for controls and displays, are not

a telltale, and are capable of being

illuminated while a vehicle is in

motion, have either (1) light intensity

which is manually or automatically

adjustable to provide at least two levels

of brightness, (2) a single intensity that

is barely discernible to a driver who has

adapted to dark ambient roadway

conditions, or (3) a means of being

turned off.

The purpose of this requirement is to

ensure the accessibility and visibility of

motor vehicle controls and displays and

to facilitate their selection under

daylight and nightitme conditions, in

order to reduce the safety hazards

caused by the diversion of the driver’s

attention from the driving task, and by

mistakes in selecting controls.

GM’s description of the noncompliance follows:

‘‘Vehicles involved: Certain of these

1996 makes and models (with estimated

number of cars): Chevrolet Cavalier and

Pontiac Sunfire (J cars) coupes and

convertibles from start of production to

January 16, 1996 (115,351 cars); Pontiac

Grand Am, Oldsmobile Achieva, and

Buick Skylark (N cars) from start of

production to October 31, 1995 (74,902

cars); and Chevrolet Corsica and

Chevrolet Beretta (L cars) from start of

production to November 13, 1995

(61,738 cars).

Noncompliance: ‘‘These vehicles are

equipped with interior lights that

illuminate when a door is opened or

when the driver activates a switch.

Power to the lights is turned on and off

by a control module, rather than by

direct action of the door or light

switches. One of the parts in the control

module is a field effect transistor (FET).

‘‘Because of manufacturing variances

in the FETs, the condition of the FET in

some modules, in combination with the

programming of the module, can cause

a situation where the module will not

turn on the lights when the door is

opened. Five minutes later, there is a

fifty percent chance that the lights will

turn on. If that does not happen, there

is an increasing chance at ten, fifteen,

twenty, twenty-five, and thirty minutes

that the lights will turn on. If the lights

are turned on at one of those five minute

increments, they will then remain on for

up to thirty minutes, unless the fuse is

removed to cut power to the module.

Moving the light switch or ignition to

‘‘off’’ will not cause the module to turn

off the lights.

‘‘In August 1995, GM found on 1996

N car in which the interior lights failed

to turn on when a door was opened. In

September, GM determined the cause of

the problem and its supplier of FETs

began inspecting 10% of them. In

October, GM started its own screening

of all incoming FETs. In January 1996,

GM learned of and began investigating

the potential for the lights to come on

and stay on.

‘‘Even in the affected cars, this

condition is intermittent. The incidence

is higher during cold weather and in

vehicles with interior light

configurations that place a higher load

on the circuit.

‘‘This table identifies the lights in

these vehicles that are forward of a

transverse vertical plane 4.35 inches

rearward of the mannequin ‘‘H’’ point

with the driver’s seat in its rearmost

driving position: