Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Notices 111

Champagne submitted information

with its petition intended to

demonstrate that the non-U.S. certified

1990 Porsche 928 S4, as originally

manufactured, conforms to many

Federal motor vehicle safety standards

in the same manner as its U.S. certified

counterpart, or is capable of being

readily altered to conform to those

standards.

Specifically, the petitioner claims that

the non-U.S. certified 1990 Porsche 928

S4 is identical to its U.S. certified

counterpart 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 Protection 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.

Additionally, petitioner contends that

the non-U.S. certified 1990 Porsche 928

S4 complies with the Bumper Standard

found in 49 CFR Part 581.

Petitioner also contends that the

vehicle is 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 front and rear 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 in the steering lock

assembly and a warning buzzer.

Standard No. 118 Power Window

Systems: rewiring of the power window

system so that the window transport is

inoperative when the ignition is

switched off.

Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash

Protection: (a) Installation of 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; (c) replacement of the driver’s

side air bag and knee bolster with U.S.

model components. The petitioner

states that the vehicle is 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 in each

front designated seating position, and

with a combination lap and shoulder

restraint that releases by means of a

single push button in each rear

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.

The petitioner also states that a

vehicle identification number plate

must be affixed to the vehicle to meet

the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565.

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, S.W.,

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: March 20, 1997.

Marilynne Jacobs,

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

[FR Doc. 97–7577 Filed 3–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

[Docket No. 96–125; Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for

Decision That Nonconforming 1989

Alfa Romeo 164 Passenger Cars Are

Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for

decision that nonconforming 1989 Alfa

Romeo 164 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 a 1989 Alfa Romeo

164 that was not originally

manufactured to comply with all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards is eligible for importation into

the United States because (1) it is

substantially similar to a vehicle that

was originally manufactured for

importation into and sale in the United

States and that was certified by its

manufacturer as complying with the

safety standards, and (2) it is capable of

being readily altered to conform to the

standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments

on the petition is April 25, 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 am to 4 pm]

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
112 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Notices

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 (Registered Importer No.

R–90–009) has petitioned NHTSA to

decide whether 1989 Alfa Romeo 164

passenger cars are eligible for

importation into the United States. The

vehicle which 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 196 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 a

1989 Alfa Romeo 164 is substantially

similar to a 1989 Alfa Romeo Milano

originally manufactured for importation

into and sale in the United States and

certified under 49 U.S.C. § 30115, 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: March 20, 1997.

Marilynne Jacobs,

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

[FR Doc. 97–7578 Filed 3–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

[Docket No. 96–094; Notice 2]

Denial of Petition for Import Eligibility

Decision

This notice sets forth the reasons for

the denial of a petition submitted to the

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) under 49

U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A). The petition,

which was submitted by Champagne

Imports, Inc. of Lansdale, Pennsylvania

(‘‘Champagne’’), a registered importer of

motor vehicles, requested NHTSA to

decide that a 1995 Audi S6 Avant

Quattro Wagon that was not originally

manufactured to comply with all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards is eligible for importation into

the United States. In the petition,

Champagne contended that this vehicle

is eligible for importation on the basis

that (1) it is substantially similar to a

vehicle that was originally

manufactured for importation into and

sale in the United States and that was

certified by its manufacturer as

complying with the safety standards

(the 1995 Audi A6 Quattro Wagon), and

(2) it is capable of being readily altered

to conform to the standards.

NHTSA published a notice in the

Federal Register on September 6, 1996

(61 FR 46900) that contained a thorough

description of the petition, and solicited

public comments upon it. One comment

was received in response to the notice,

from Volkswagen of America, Inc.

(‘‘Volkswagen’’), the United States

representative of Audi AG, the vehicle’s

manufacturer. In this comment,

Volkswagen contended that the nonU.S. certified 1995 Audi S6 Avant

Quattro Wagon is ineligible for

importation because it is not

substantially similar to a vehicle that

was originally manufactured and

certified for sale in the United States

and is not capable of being readily

altered to conform to the standards.

Specifically, Volkswagen observed that

the non-U.S. certified 1995 Audi S6

Avant Quattro Wagon is equipped with

a 4.2 liter V8 engine, which it claimed

is significantly larger and heavier than

either the 2.8 liter V6 engine that is

installed in the U.S. certified 1995 Audi

A6 Quattro Wagon or the 2.2 liter 5

cylinder engine that is installed in the

U.S. certified 1995 Audi S6 Quattro

Wagon. Volkswagen stated that no

dynamic testing has been performed

that would be necessary to certify that

the vehicle, when equipped with the

larger engine, will meet the

requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant

Crash Protection. Additionally,

Volkswagen noted that the non-U.S.

certified 1995 Audi S6 Avant Quattro

Wagon is not equipped with a knee

bolster that is necessary to meet the

automatic restraint requirements of

Standard No. 208.

NHTSA accorded Champagne an

opportunity to respond to Volkswagen’s

comments. In its response, Champagne

expressed strong disagreement with

Volkswagen’s contention that the nonU.S. certified 1995 Audi S6 Avant

Quattro Wagon is not substantially

similar to a vehicle originally

manufactured and certified for sale in

the United States. Champagne asserted

that the vehicle’s larger engine size does

not have a significant impact on the

crashworthiness of the vehicle or on its

compliance with Standard No. 208.

Specifically, Champagne contended that

the 2.2 liter ‘‘in line’’ 5 cylinder engine

installed in the U.S. certified 1995 Audi

S6 Quattro Wagon is very close in

length to the V8 engine installed in the

non-U.S. certified 1995 Audi S6 Avant

Quattro Wagon. Additionally,

Champagne observed that because of the

extensive use of aluminum in larger

engines, the weight of vehicles

equipped with each of these engines

would differ by only ‘‘a few percent.’’

In a subsequent response, Champagne

elaborated on these comments by stating

that the additional length and weight of

the V8 engine installed in the non-U.S.

certified 1995 Audi S6 Avant Quattro

Wagon will not significantly affect the

crash performance of the vehicle when

compared to a comparable model

equipped with the 2.8 liter V6 engine

that is installed in the U.S. certified

1995 Audi S6 Quattro. Specifically,

Champagne alleged that the total

distance from the back edge of the

engine block to the front edge of the fire

wall in the non-U.S. certified 1995 Audi

S6 Avant Quattro is two inches, a

measurement that it asserts is identical

to that found in the U.S. certified 1995

Audi S6 Quattro equipped with the 2.8

liter V6 engine. Based on this similarity,

Champagne theorized that ‘‘in a frontal

crash, the V8 engine will affect the

passenger compartment in a similar

manner as the V6 engine.’’ Additionally,

Champagne contended that both the

non-U.S. certified 1995 Audi S6 Avant

Quattro and its U.S. certified

counterpart are ‘‘designed so that in a

severe frontal crash the engine and

drivetrain are directed downward and

rearward, under the passenger

compartment.’’ According to

Champagne, ‘‘[t]his minimizes the effect

[of these components] on the safety

characteristics of the frontal crush

zone,’’ and results in both the U.S. and

non-U.S. certified versions of the

vehicle ‘‘having substantially similar

[Standard No. 208] compliance results

* * *. Champagne further reiterated

that the V8 is only three percent heavier

that the V6, and only one percent

heavier than the 5 cylinder engine when

engine weight is measured as a

percentage of total vehicle weight.

Champagne asserted that this difference

‘‘is not significant, and will not have a

significant impact on [Standard No. 208]

compliance.’’

NHTSA accorded Volkswagen an

opportunity to respond to Champagne’s

comments. In its response, Volkswagen

discounted the significance of the

distance between the back of the engine

and the vehicle firewall as an indicator

of the engine’s effect on crash