Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Notices 15969

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. Motors of Kingsville, Maryland

(Registered Importer R–90–006)

petitioned NHTSA to decide whether

1987 and 1988 Toyota Van MPVs are

eligible for importation into the United

States. NHTSA published notice of the

petition on January 27, 1997 (62 FR

3940) to afford an opportunity for public

comment. The reader is referred to that

notice for a thorough description of the

petition. No comments were received in

response to the notice. Based on its

review of the information submitted by

the petitioner, NHTSA has 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–200 is the

vehicle eligibility number assigned to

vehicles admissible under this decision.

Final Decision

Accordingly, on the basis of the

foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides that

1987 and 1988 Toyota Van MPVs not

originally manufactured to comply with

all applicable Federal motor vehicle

safety standards are substantially

similar to 1987 and 1988 Toyota Van

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: March 27, 1997.

Marilynne Jacobs,

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

[FR Doc. 97–8522 Filed 4–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

[Docket No. 96–129; Notice 2]

General Motors Corporation; Grant of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

This notice grants the application by

General Motors Corporation (GM) of

Warren, Michigan, to be exempted from

the notification and remedy

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118(d), and

30120(h) for a noncompliance with 49

CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,

‘‘Lamps, Reflective Devices and

Associated Equipment.’’ The basis of the

application is that the noncompliance is

inconsequential as it relates to motor

vehicle safety.

Notice of receipt of the application

was published on December 18, 1996,

and an opportunity afforded for

comment (61 FR 66744).

Paragraph S5.5.11(a)(2) of FMVSS No.

108 requires that any pair of lamps on

the front of a passenger car, * * * other

than parking lamps or fog lamps, may be

wired to be automatically activated, as

determined by the manufacturer of the

vehicle, * * * provided that each such

lamp is permanently marked ‘‘DRL’’ on

its lens in letters not less than 3 mm

high, unless it is optically combined

with a headlamp.

GM’s description of the

noncompliance follows:

GM recently discovered that the

combination park/turn signal lamp for

the 1997 Pontiac Firebird vehicles had

been released without the required

‘‘DRL’’ marking on the face of the lamp.

The condition was corrected in

September 1996. Approximately 4,500

vehicles were produced without ‘‘DRL’’

marked on the lamps.

GM supported its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following reasons:

The park/turn signal lamps meet all

substantive requirements of FMVSS 108 for

all functions; the sole noncompliance

concerns the marking on the lamps for the

voluntary DRL function.

NHTSA adopted a lens marking

requirement in the final rule promulgating

DRL provisions because of a concern that

state enforcement and vehicle inspection

officials would not be able to ‘‘distinguish

between legal and illegal lamps and lamp

combinations in the absence of marking.’’ 58

Fed. Reg. 3504 (1993).

While NHTSA adopted ‘‘DRL’’ as the

required marking, it had considered an

alternate proposal to adopt the ‘‘Y2’’

identification code specified in SAE

Recommended Practice J759, Lighting

Identification Code, January 1995 (SAE J579).

The agency chose to require the ‘‘DRL’’

marking apparently not because of a state

inspection concern, but because the SAE

specifications were not identical to the

federal ones. NHTSA reasoned that ‘‘to adopt

the SAE designation would be inaccurate and

confusing because it would signify adoption

of the SAE requirements * * *’’ Id.

In this instance, the subject vehicles

include the ‘‘Y2’’ marking specified by SAE

J759. Thus, while the lamps do not meet the

explicit federal marking requirements, they

do provide an indication to state officials that

the lamps are intended to be used as DRLs.

Moreover, the concern expressed by NHTSA

in the final rule about the SAE designation

does not apply here since the subject lamps

meet the substantive requirements of both

FMVSS 108 and SAE J759.

The owner’s manual for the Firebird

explains that the DRL function is provided by

the park/turn signal lamp. A state inspector

who is unclear about the ‘‘Y2’’ designation

would have alternate means of confirming

that the turn signal portion of the lamp

properly provides a DRL function.

The population of subject vehicles is small,

so any confusion created by the condition

would be minimal.

GM is not aware of any customer

complaints concerning the absence of the

‘‘DRL’’ marking.

No comments were received on the

application.

Discussion and Recommendation

The agency has carefully reviewed

GM’s analyses. Because the lens

marking requirement was initially

promulgated by the agency to enable

state enforcement and vehicle

inspection officials to distinguish

between legal and illegal lamps and

lamp combinations, NHTSA believes

that the omission of the ‘‘DRL’’ marking

will not compromise motor vehicle

safety for the reasons expressed by GM.

Accordingly, for the reasons

expressed above, the petitioner has met

its burden of persuasion that the

noncompliance herein described is

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety,

and the agency grants GM’s application

for exemption from notification of the

noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.

30118 and from remedy as required by

49 U.S.C. 30120. (49 U.S.C. 30118,

30120; delegations of authority at 49

CFR 1.50 and 501.8.)

Issued on: March 31, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–8537 Filed 4–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P