18384 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices

and alignment will be incorporated into,

and analyzed with, the various build

alternatives. SR–204 would be widened

on one or both sides of the existing

alignment.

Information letters describing the

proposed action and soliciting

comments on the proposed project will

be sent to appropriate Federal, State and

local agencies, as well as to private

organizations and individuals who have

previously expressed interest, or who

are expected to be interested, in the

proposed project. An initial public

scoping meeting is expected to be held

in the City of Ogden during May 1997.

Notice of additional public meetings to

present information and solicit

comments relative to alternatives for

consideration and possible impacts will

be given as the proposed project

proceeds. In addition, a public hearing

will be held. Upon release of the draft

EIS, public notice will be given of the

time and place for a public hearing. The

draft EIS will be available for public and

agency review and comment prior to the

public hearing.

To ensure that the full range of issues

related to this proposed action are

addressed and all significant issues are

identified, comments and suggestions

are invited from all interested parties.

Comments or questions concerning this

proposed action and the EIS should be

directed to the FHWA or UDOT at the

address provided above.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Number 20.205, Highway Research,

Planning and Construction. The regulations

impending Executive Order 12372 regarding

intergovernmental consultation on Federal

programs and activities apply to this

program.)

Issued on: April 9, 1997.

Michael G. Ritchie,

Division Administrator, Salt Lake City, Utah.

[FR Doc. 97–9624 Filed 4–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket Nos. 96–126, Notice 2; 96–131,

Notice 2; 96–132, Notice 2; 97–003, Notice

2; 97–005, Notice 2; 97–006, Notice 2; 97–

007, Notice 2; 97–008, Notice 2; 97–009,

Notice 2; 97–010, Notice 2; 97–011, Notice

2; and 97–012, Notice 2]

Decision That Certain Nonconforming

Motor Vehicles Are Eligible for

Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of decision by NHTSA

that certain nonconforming motor

vehicles are eligible for importation.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

decision by NHTSA that certain motor

vehicles 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/

or sale in the United States and certified

by their manufacturers as complying

with the safety standards, and they are

capable of being readily altered to

conform to the standards.

DATES: This decision is effective April

15, 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 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.

NHTSA received petitions from

registered importers to decide whether

the vehicles listed in Annex A to this

notice are eligible for importation into

the United States. To afford an

opportunity for public comment,

NHTSA published notice of these

petitions as specified in Annex A. The

reader is referred to those notices for a

thorough description of the petitions.

No comments were received in response

to these notices. Based on its review of

the information submitted by the

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: April 10, 1997.

Marilynne Jacobs,

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

Annex A—Nonconforming Motor Vehicles

Decided To Be Eligible for Importation

1. Docket No. 96–126

Nonconforming Vehicle: 1986 Mazda RX–

7

Substantially similar U.S.-certified vehicle:

1986 Mazda RX–7

Notice of Petition published at: 62 FR 1143

(January 8, 1997)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–199

2. Docket No. 96–131

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1992 through

1996 BMW 325i

Substantially similar U.S.-certified

vehicles: 1992 through 1996 BMW 325i

Notice of Petition published at: 62 FR 1145

(January 8, 1997)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–197

3. Docket No. 96–132

Nonconforming Vehicle: 1984 Nissan

300ZX

Substantially similar U.S.-certified vehicle:

1984 Nissan 300ZX

Notice of Petition published at: 62 FR 1144

(January 8, 1997)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–198

4. Docket No. 97–003

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1987 and 1988

Toyota Vans

Substantially similar U.S.-certified

vehicles: 1987 and 1988 Toyota Vans
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices 18385

Notice of Petition published at: 62 FR 3940

(January 27, 1997)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–200

5. Docket No. 97–005

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1991–1996

Ducati 900SS Motorcycles

Substantially similar U.S.-certified

vehicles: 1991–1996 Ducati 900SS

Motorcycles

Notice of Petition published at: 62 FR 4829

(January 31, 1997)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–201

6. Docket No. 97–006

Nonconforming Vehicle: 1992 MercedesBenz 230CE

Substantially similar U.S.-certified vehicle:

1992 Mercedes-Benz 300CE

Notice of Petition published at: 62 FR 5067

(February 3, 1997)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–203

7. Docket No. 97–007

Nonconforming Vehicle: 1994 MercedesBenz C280

Substantially similar U.S.-certified vehicle:

1994 Mercedes-Benz C280

Notice of Petition published at: 62 FR 6611

(February 12, 1997)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–204

8. Docket No. 97–008

Nonconforming Vehicle: 1990 BMW 325iX

Substantially similar U.S.-certified vehicle:

1990 BMW 325iX

Notice of Petition published at: 62 FR 6609

(February 12, 1997)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–205

9. Docket No. 97–009

Nonconforming Vehicle: 1994 MercedesBenz E200

Substantially similar U.S.-certified

vehicles: 1994 Mercedes-Benz E320

Notice of Petition published at: 62 FR 6613

(February 12, 1997)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–207

10. Docket No. 97–010

Nonconforming Vehicle: 1983 Suzuki

GSX750 Motorcycle

Substantially similar U.S.-certified

vehicles: 1983 Suzuki GS750 Motorcycle

Notice of Petition published at: 62 FR 6614

(February 12, 1997)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–208

11. Docket No. 97–011

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1972 through

1997 Harley Davidson FX, FL, and XL

Series Motorcycles

Substantially similar U.S.-certified

vehicles: 1972 through 1997 Harley

Davidson FX, FL, and XL Series

Motorcycles

Notice of Petition published at: 62 FR 6612

(February 12, 1997)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–202

12. Docket No. 97–012

Nonconforming Vehicle: 1974 MGB

Roadster

Substantially similar U.S.-certified vehicle:

1974 MGB Roadster

Notice of Petition published at: 62 FR 6615

(February 12, 1997)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–206

[FR Doc. 97–9701 Filed 4–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. 96–099; 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 LPC of New

York, Inc. of Ronkonkoma, New York

(‘‘LPC’’), a registered importer of motor

vehicles, requested NHTSA to decide

that 1995–1996 GMC and Chevrolet

Suburban multipurpose passenger

vehicles (MPVs) that were not originally

manufactured to comply with all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards are eligible for importation

into the United States. In the petition,

LPC contended that these vehicle are

eligible for importation on the basis that

(1) they are substantially similar to

vehicles that were originally

manufactured for sale in the United

States and that were certified by their

manufacturer as complying with the

safety standards (the U.S.-certified

version of 1995–1996 GMC and

Chevrolet Suburbans), and (2) they are

capable of being readily altered to

conform to the standards.

NHTSA published a notice in the

Federal Register on September 25, 1996

(61 FR 50371) that contained a thorough

description of the petition, and solicited

public comments upon it. One comment

was received in response to the notice,

from the North American Operations

Division of General Motors Corporation

(‘‘GM’’), the corporate parent of GM de

Mexico, the manufacturer of the subject

vehicles. In this comment, GM

contended that non-U.S. certified 1995–

1996 GMC and Chevrolet Suburban

MPVs should not be eligible for

importation because they may not be

substantially similar to vehicles that

were originally manufactured and

certified for sale in the United States.

Moreover, GM noted that extensive

certification testing has not been

conducted to determine whether these

vehicles are capable of being readily

altered to conform to the standards. GM

stated that during the 1995 and 1996

model years, GM de Mexico produced

only Chevrolet Suburbans for sale and

use in that country, and that the

company did not market any GMC

Suburbans in Mexico. GM observed that

these vehicles were not certified as

meeting Federal motor vehicle safety

standards (FMVSS).

GM noted that Chevrolet Suburbans

manufactured for sale and use in

Mexico contain approximately 750 parts

that differ from those used on

Suburbans manufactured for sale and

use in the United States. The company

stated that a substantial number of these

parts are produced by Mexican

suppliers and are not subject to the

same warranty and approval process

that is used by GM in purchasing parts

that may affect compliance with

applicable FMVSS. Parts that GM has

purchased without following these

procedures include ones that it

describes as potentially affecting

compliance with Standard Nos. 105

Hydraulic Brake Systems, 119 New

Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles other than

Passenger Cars, 120 Tire Selection and

Rims for Motor Vehicles other than

Passenger Cars, 201 Occupant

Protection in Interior Impact, 202 Head

Restraints, 205 Glazing Materials, 207

Seating Systems, 208 Occupant Crash

Protection, 301 Fuel System Integrity,

and 302 Flammability of Interior

Materials. Although GM acknowledged

that it was unable to state that a vehicle

built with the parts in question would

not meet these standards, the company

reiterated that neither it nor GM de

Mexico has undertaken the testing that

would be necessary to establish such

compliance.

GM further observed that Mexican

standards contain requirements for

glazing, tires, brake fluids, batteries, and

safety belts that differ from those in the

corresponding FMVSS. Additionally,

the company asserted that Mexico has

no requirements similar to those in

Standard Nos. 102 Transmission Shift

Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and

Transmission Braking Effect, 124

Accelerator Control Sequence, 208

Occupant Crash Protection, 214 Side

Impact Protection, or 301 Fuel System

Integrity, and to requirements in

portions of Standard No. 108 Lamps,

Reflective Devices, and Associated

Equipment. Citing examples, GM stated

that vehicles manufactured for the

Mexican market have no center high

mounted stop lamps or air bags.

Additionally, the company contended

that these vehicles have engines that

may not meet Standard Nos. 102 and

124.

In response to a follow-up inquiry

from NHTSA, GM stated that the 750

parts in Mexican Suburbans that are not

found in the U.S.-certified versions of

the vehicle have different part numbers

from their U.S. equivalents. GM asserted

that the assignment of a different part

number is due to some difference in

product design specifications and not

simply to a difference in supplier. The