1804 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 8 / Monday, January 13, 1997 / Notices

petitioners, NHTSA has decided to grant

the petitions.

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. Vehicle eligibility

numbers assigned to vehicles admissible

under this decision are specified in

Annex A.

Final Decision

Accordingly, on the basis of the

foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides that

each motor vehicle listed in Annex A to

this notice, which was not originally

manufactured to comply with all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards, is substantially similar to a

motor vehicle manufactured for

importation into and/or sale in the

United States, and certified under 49

U.S.C. 30115, as specified in Annex A,

and is 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: January 8, 1997.

Marilynne Jacobs,

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

Annex A—Nonconforming Motor

Vehicles Decided To Be Eligible For

Importation

1. Docket No. 96–102

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1990–1993

Mercedes-Benz 300E 4Matic Passenger

Cars

Substantially similar U.S.-certified

vehicles: 1990–1993 Mercedes-Benz

300E 4Matic Passenger Cars

Notice of Petition published at: 61 FR

52992 (October 9, 1996)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–192

2. Docket No. 96–105

Nonconforming Vehicle: 1989 Honda

Prelude

Substantially similar U.S.-certified vehicle:

1989 Honda Prelude

Notice of Petition published at: 61 FR

52993 (October 9, 1996)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–191

3. Docket No. 96–107

Nonconforming Vehicle: 1992 MercedesBenz 300TE Passenger Car

Substantially similar U.S.-certified vehicle:

1992 Mercedes-Benz 300TE

Notice of Petition published at: 61 FR

54252 (October 17, 1996)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–193

4. Docket No. 96–111

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1994, 1995, and

1996 Jaguar XJS Passenger Cars

Substantially similar U.S.-certified

vehicles: 1994, 1995, and 1996 Jaguar

XJS

Notice of Petition published at: 61 FR

56998 (November 5, 1996)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–195

5. Docket No. 96–112

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1990–1995 BMW

5 Series Passenger Cars

Substantially similar U.S.-certified

vehicles: 1990–1995 BMW 5 Series

Notice of Petition published at: 61 FR

56997 (November 5, 1996)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–194

[FR Doc. 97–767 Filed 1–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

[Docket No. 96–127; Notice 1]

Notice of Tentative Decision That

Nonconforming 1986 Daimler

Limousines Are Eligible for

Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Request for comments on

tentative decision that nonconforming

1986 Daimler Limousines are eligible for

importation.

SUMMARY: This notice requests

comments on a tentative decision by the

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) that a 1986

Daimler Limousine that was not

originally manufactured to comply with

all applicable Federal motor vehicle

safety standards is eligible for

importation into the United States

because it has safety features that

comply with, or are capable of being

altered to comply with, all such

standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments

on this tentative decision is February

12, 1997.

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 (FMVSS) shall be refused

admission into the United States unless

NHTSA has decided, either pursuant to

a petition from the manufacturer or

registered importer or on its own

initiative, 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. Where there is

no substantially similar U.S.-certified

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

permits a nonconforming motor vehicle

to be admitted into the United States if

its safety features comply with, or are

capable of being altered to comply with,

all applicable Federal motor vehicle

safety standards based on destructive

test data or such other evidence as

NHTSA decides to be adequate.

On May 9, 1996, NHTSA received

from Champagne Imports, Inc. of

Lansdale, Pennsylvania (‘‘Champagne’’)

(Registered Importer No. 90–009) a

petition to decide whether a 1987

Daimler Limousine that was not

originally manufactured to comply with

all applicable Federal motor vehicle

safety standards is eligible for

importation into the United States.

Champagne contended that this vehicle

is eligible for importation under 49

U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), on the basis that

it is substantially similar to a 1985

Daimler Limousine that NHTSA

determined to be eligible for

importation through a notice published

on July 20, 1992 at 57 FR 32051.

After reviewing the petition, NHTSA

informed Champagne that the petition

could not receive further consideration

because the ‘‘substantially similar’’

vehicle it identified was not originally

manufactured for import into and sale

in the United States, as required under

49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A)(i), and was not

of the same model year as the vehicle

that was sought to be imported, as

required under 49 U.S.C.

30141(a)(1)(A)(iii). In light of these

circumstances, NHTSA advised

Champagne to modify its petition to

request that the vehicle be determined

eligible for importation under 49 U.S.C.

30141(a)(1)(B), on the basis that its

safety features comply with, or are

capable of being altered to comply with,

all applicable Federal motor vehicle

safety standards.

Although Champagne did not

formally modify the petition, it did

submit to NHTSA a copy of a letter from

Jaguar Cars (Jaguar), the United States

representative of Jaguar Cars, Ltd., the

vehicle’s manufacturer. This letter

identified the vehicle that Champagne

seeks to import as, in actuality, a 1986

Daimler Limousine, and enumerated the

Federal motor vehicle safety standards

that the vehicle does not meet. Those

are Standard Nos. 103 Windshield

Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 104

Windshield Wiping and Washing

Systems, 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices,

and Associated Equipment, 110 Tire

Selection and Rims, 114 Theft

Protection, 202 Head Restraints, 203

Impact Protection for the Driver from

the Steering Control System, 205
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 8 / Monday, January 13, 1997 / Notices 1805

1 The 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.

2 See Exempt. of Rail Abandonment—Offers of

Finan. Assist., 4 I.C.C.2d 164 (1987).

3 The Board will accept late-filed trail use

requests as long as the abandonment has not been

consummated and the abandoning railroad is

willing to negotiate an agreement.

Glazing Materials, 208 Occupant Crash

Protection, 209 Seat Belt Assemblies,

210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages,

and 301 Fuel System Integrity.

Additionally, Jaguar stated that the

vehicle does not meet the vehicle

identification number requirements of

49 CFR part 565, or the Bumper

Standard, found at 49 CFR part 581.

Champagne submitted to NHTSA an

additional letter, from the Jaguar

Daimler Heritage Trust of Coventry,

England, stating that the vehicle it seeks

to import was hand built, and of a type

produced by Jaguar Cars Ltd. until 1992.

This letter also stated that although

there were ‘‘small external cosmetic

changes’’ from vehicle to vehicle, ‘‘the

external shape, style, engine, gearbox,

and chassis of the car all remained the

same throughout its production build.’’

Moreover, the letter provided

confirmation that a Daimler Limousine

built in 1986 ‘‘would be no different

than a similar car which was built in

1985 apart from any optional extras

which may have been ordered * * *.’’

Based on the information from the

Jaguar Daimler Heritage Trust indicating

that Daimler Limousines are in all

essential respects identical from model

year to model year, and NHTSA’s prior

determination that a 1985 Daimler

Limousine is eligible for importation,

NHTSA has tentatively decided that the

1986 Daimler Limousine that is the

subject of Champagne’s petition is

eligible for importation.

Tentative Decisions

NHTSA hereby tentatively decides

that a 1986 Daimler Limousine that was

not originally manufactured to comply

with all applicable Federal motor

vehicle safety standards is eligible for

importation into the United States

because it has safety features that

comply with, or are capable of being

altered to comply with, those standards.

Vehicle Eligibility Number

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. If this tentative

decision is made final, all vehicles

admissible under that decision will be

assigned vehicle eligibility no. VCA–1.

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

decision 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)(B) and

(b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegation of authority

at 49 CFR 1.50.

Issued on: January 8, 1997.

Ricardo Martinez, M.D.,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–793 Filed 1–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Docket No. AB–319 (Sub-No. 3X)]

Florida Central Railroad Company,

Inc.; Abandonment Exemption in

Seminole County, FL

Florida Central Railroad Company,

Inc. (FCEN) has filed a notice of

exemption under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart

F—Exempt Abandonments to abandon

approximately 0.2 miles of railroad

between milepost F–1.1 and the end of

the track at milepost F–0.9 in Forest

City, Seminole County, FL.

FCEN has certified that: (1) no local

traffic has moved over the line for at

least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead

traffic on 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 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 February

12, 1997, 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 3 must be filed by January

23, 1997. Petitions to reopen or requests

for public use conditions under 49 CFR

1152.28 must be filed by February 3,

1997, with: Office of the Secretary, Case

Control Branch, Surface Transportation

Board, 1201 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20423.

A copy of any petition filed with the

Board should be sent to applicant’s

representative: Thomas J. Litwiler,

Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly, Two

Prudential Plaza, 45th Floor, 180 North

Stetson Avenue, Chicago, IL 60601.

If the verified notice contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio.

FCEN has filed an environmental

report which addresses the

abandonment’s effects, if any, on the

environment and historic resources. The

Section of Environmental Analysis

(SEA) will issue an environmental

assessment (EA) by January 17, 1997.

Interested persons may obtain a copy of

the EA by writing to SEA (Room 3219,

Surface Transportation Board,

Washington, DC 20423) or by calling

Elaine Kaiser, Chief of SEA, at (202)

927–6248. Comments on environmental

and historic preservation matters must

be filed within 15 days after the EA

becomes available to the public.

Environmental, historic preservation,

public use, or trail use/rail banking

conditions will be imposed, where

appropriate, in a subsequent decision.

Decided: January 6, 1997.