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
18386 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 1997 / Notices

1Lac Qui Parle is a political subdivision of the

State of Minnesota.

2BNSF currently provides common carrier rail

service over 36.2 miles of Lac Qui’s rail line

pursuant to Burlington Northern Railroad

Company, Modified Rail Certificate, Finance Docket

No. 30323 (ICC served Nov. 7, 1983). Lac Qui will

retain ownership of the .77 miles of track not

purchased by BNSF, and BNSF will continue to

operate over the .77-miles of line under various

industrial track agreements. Pursuant to 49 CFR

1150.24, BNSF will provide 60 days’ notice of its

intent to terminate the service under the Modified

Rail Certificate.

company acknowledged that it has not

identified all design specification

differences between these parts and the

corresponding parts found on U.S.-

certified vehicles. GM asserted,

however, that the analysis it has

performed reveals that interior trim, seat

assemblies, glazing materials, tires,

engines, manual transmissions, rear

axles, front hub and knuckle assemblies,

fuel lines, and fuel caps all have design

specifications that differ in a number of

areas from the specifications that apply

to parts released for U.S. vehicles. GM

also noted that even non-Mexican

sourced parts used in Mexican

Suburbans, such as automatic

transmissions and fuel tank assemblies,

have different design specifications

from those found on U.S. certified

vehicles.

NHTSA accorded LPC an opportunity

to respond to GM’s comments. In its

response, LPC agreed with GM’s

assertion that components released for

non-U.S. marketed Suburbans may not

meet FMVSS requirements. LPC

contended, however, that the specific

vehicles it seeks to import were

manufactured for the U.S. market with

U.S.-model components, but that they

lack the required certification label.

NHTSA accorded GM an opportunity

to respond to LPC’s comments. In its

response, GM stated that it examined

the vehicle identification numbers

assigned to the vehicles that LPC wishes

to import, and has concluded on the

basis of that examination that these

vehicles were not originally

manufactured for sale in the United

States.

NHTSA has fully considered the

comments from both GM and LPC. In

light of GM’s claim that 1995–1996

Suburbans built for the Mexican market

have 750 parts that differ from those

found on U.S. certified versions of these

vehicles, and that vehicles with these

parts have not been tested for

compliance with the FMVSS, LPC had

the burden of producing information to

demonstrate such compliance. Far from

producing such information, LPC

acknowledged agreement with GM’s

position. In light of this circumstance,

NHTSA has concluded that the petition

does not clearly demonstrate that nonU.S. certified 1995–1996 GMC and

Chevrolet Suburban MPVs are eligible

for importation. The petition must

therefore be denied under 49 CFR

593.7(e).

In accordance with 49 U.S.C.

30141(b)(1), NHTSA will not consider a

new import eligibility petition covering

this vehicle until at least three months

from the date of this notice.

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

(b)(1); 49 CFR 593.7; delegations of authority

at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

Issued on: April 10, 1997.

Marilynne Jacobs,

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

[FR Doc. 97–9698 Filed 4–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33364]

The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe

Railway Company—Acquisition and

Operation Exemption—Lac Qui Parle

Regional Railroad Authority

The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe

Railway Company (BNSF), a Class I rail

carrier, has filed a verified notice of

exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to

acquire and operate approximately

35.43 miles of line owned by the Lac

Que Parle Regional Railroad Authority

(Lac Qui) 1 extending from milepost

0.00, at Hanley Falls, MN, to milepost

35.43, at Madison, MN.2

The transaction is expected to be

consummated on the April 15, 1997

effective date of the exemption.

If the verified notice contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio. Petitions to reopen the

proceeding to revoke the exemption

under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed

at any time. The filing of a petition to

reopen will not automatically stay the

transaction.

An original and 10 copies of all

pleadings, referring to STB Finance

Docket No. 33364, must be filed with

the Office of the Secretary, Surface

Transportation Board, Case Control

Unit, 1925 K Street NW., Washington,

DC 20423–0001. In addition, a copy of

each pleading must be served on

Michael E. Roper, Esq., The Burlington

Northern and Santa Fe Railway

Company, 3800 Continental Plaza, 777

Main Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102–

5384.

Decided: April 8, 1997.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–9663 Filed 4–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision

[AC–7; OTS Nos. H–2854 and 6842]

Security Federal Savings Bank,

Elizabethton, Tennessee; Approval of

Conversion Application

Notice is hereby given that on April

4, 1997, the Director, Corporate

Activities, Office of Thrift Supervision,

or her designee, acting pursuant to

delegated authority, approved the

application of Security Federal Savings

Bank, Elizabethton, Tennessee, to

convert to the stock form of

organization. Copies of the application

are available for inspection at the

Dissemination Branch, Office of Thrift

Supervision, 1700 G Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20552, and the Central

Regional Office, Office of Thrift

Supervision, 200 West Madison Street,

Suite 1300, Chicago, Illinois 60606.

By the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Dated: April 9, 1997.

Nadine Y. Washington,

Corporate Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–9603 Filed 4–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6720–01–M

UNITED STATES INFORMATION

AGENCY

U.S. Advisory Commission on Public

Diplomacy Meeting

AGENCY: United States Information

Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: A meeting of the U.S.

Advisory Commission on Public

Diplomacy will be held on April 16 in

Room 600, 301 4th Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C., from 10:00 a.m. To

12:00 noon.

At 10:00 a.m. The Commission will

meet with Dr. Barry M. Blechman,

Chairman, The Henry L. Stimson

Center, and Mr. John A. Schall,

Executive Director, Project on the

Advocacy of U.S. Interests Abroad of

The Henry L. Stimson Center, to discuss

the Center’s study of how to organize

the U.S. government and representation

abroad to conduct foreign affairs, and

how to link resources to foreign policy

needs.