Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 / Notices 24585

7 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

For the Commission by the Division

of Market Regulation, pursuant to

delegated authority.7

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–11745 Filed 5–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Capstone Ventures SBIC, L.P. (License No.

09/79–0413)

Notice of Issuance of a Small Business

Investment Company License

On September 19, 1997, an

application was filed by Capstone

Ventures SBIC, L.P., at 3000 Sand Hill

Road, Bldg. 1, Suite 290, Menlo Park,

California 94025, with the Small

Business Administration (SBA)

pursuant to Section 107.300 of the

Regulations governing small business

investment companies (13 CFR 107.300

(1997)) for a license to operate as a small

business investment company.

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant

to Section 301(c) of the Small Business

Investment Act of 1958, as amended,

after having considered the application

and all other pertinent information, SBA

issued License No. 09/79–0413 on April

7, 1998, to Capstone Ventures SBIC, L.P.

to operate as a small business

investment company.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program No. 59.011, Small Business

Investment Companies)

Dated: April 22, 1998.

Don A. Christensen,

Associate Administrator for Investment.

[FR Doc. 98–11794 Filed 5–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 2798]

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs;

Imposition of Missile Proliferation

Sanctions Against Entities in North

Korea and Pakistan

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The United States

Government has determined that

entities in North Korea and Pakistan

have engaged in missile technology

proliferation activities that require

imposition of sanctions pursuant to the

Arms Export Control Act, as amended,

and the Export Administration Act of

1979, as amended (as carried out under

Executive Order 12424 of August 19,

1994).

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 17, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Vann H. Van Diepen, Office of

Chemical, Biological and Missile

Nonproliferation, Bureau of PoliticalMilitary Affairs, Department of State,

(202–647–1142).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to Section 73(a)(1) of the Arms Export

Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797b(a)(1)),

Section 11B(b)(1) of the Export

Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C.

app. 2401b(b)(1)), as carried out under

Executive Order 12924 of August 19,

1994 (hereinafter cited as the ‘‘Export

Administration Act of 1979’’), and

Executive Order 12851 of June 11, 1993,

the United States Government

determined on April 17, 1998, that the

following foreign persons have engaged

in missile technology proliferation

activities that require the imposition of

the sanctions described in Sections

73(a)(2) (B) and (C) of the Arms Export

Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797b(a)(2) (B)

and (C)) and Sections 11B(b)(1)(B) (ii)

and (iii) of the Export Administration

Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. app.

2410b(b)(1)(B) (ii) and (iii)) on these

entities:

1. Changgwang Sinyong Corporation

(a.k.a. North Korea Mining Development

Trading Corporation) (North Korea) and

its sub-units, successors, and affiliated

companies; and

2. Khan Research Laboratories

(Pakistan) and its sub-units and

successors.

Accordingly, the following sanctions

are being imposed on these entities:

(A) New individual licenses for export

to the entities described above of items

controlled pursuant to the Export

Administration Act of 1979 will be

denied for two years;

(B) New licenses for export to the

entities described above of items

controlled pursuant to the Arms Export

Control Act will be denied for two

years;

(C) No United States Government

contracts involving the entities

described above will be entered into for

two years; and

(D) No products produced by the

entities described above will be

imported into the United States for two

years.

With respect to items controlled

pursuant to the Export Administration

Act of 1979, the export sanction only

applies to exports made pursuant to

individual export licenses.

Additionally, because of the

definition of ‘‘person’’ in section

74(8)(B) of the Arms Export Control Act

(22 U.S.C. 2797c(8)(B)) and North

Korea’s status as a country with a nonmarket economy that is not a former

member of the Warsaw Pact, the

following sanctions shall be applied to

all activities of the North Korean

government relating to the development

of production of missile equipment or

technology and all activities of the

North Korean government affecting the

development or production of

electronics, space systems or

equipment, and military aircraft:

(A) New licenses for export to the

government activities described above

of items controlled pursuant to the

Arms Export Control Act will be denied

for two years;

(B) No U.S. Government contracts

involving the government activities

described above will be entered into for

two years; and

(C) No products produced by the

government activities described above

will be imported into the United States

for two years.

These measures shall be implemented

by the responsible agencies as provided

in Executive Order 12851 of June 11,

1993.

Dated: April 24, 1998.

Eric D. Newsom,

Acting Assistant Secretary of State for

Political Military Affairs.

[FR Doc. 98–11935 Filed 5–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–25–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–97–3052; Notice 2]

Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.; Grant of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

Kolcraft Enterprises of Chicago,

Illinois, has determined that

approximately 107,000 child restraint

systems fail to comply with Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)

No. 213, ‘‘Child Restraint Systems,’’ and

has filed an appropriate report pursuant

to 49 CFR part 573, ‘‘Defects and

Noncompliance Reports.’’ Kolcraft has

also applied to be exempted from the

notification and remedy requirements of

49 U.S.C. Chapter 301—‘‘Motor Vehicle

Safety’’ on the basis that the

noncompliance is inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety.

Notice of receipt of the application

was published, with a 30-day comment

period, on November 25, 1997, in the
24586 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 / Notices

Federal Register (62 FR 59755). NHTSA

received no comments.

FMVSS No. 213, paragraph S5.7,

requires that each material used in a

child restraint system shall conform to

S4 of FMVSS No. 302, ‘‘Flammability of

Interior Materials.’’ This specifies that

any material that does not adhere to

other material(s) at every point of

contact shall meet the burn rate

requirements of S4.3 when tested

separately. Materials are to be tested as

a composite only if the material adheres

to other material(s) at every point of

contact.

The Kolcraft child restraints affected

and the dates of production are as

follows: Plus 4, Infant Rider (Models

36822–HY and 13x22–HY; 1/96 to 4/97);

Plus 4, Infant Rider (Models 36820–LM

and 13822–LM; 2/96 to 4/97); Plus 4,

Travel-About, Infant Rider (Models

36820–RF and 138x2–RF; 3/96 to 4/97);

Plus 4, Plus 5, Infant Rider, TravelAbout (Models 368xx–SE and 13xx2–

SE; 2/96 to 12/96); Rock n’ Ride (Model

13100–PJ; 1/96 to 5/97; no longer in

production); and Performa (Model

23305–TU; 3/96 to 10/96). The seat

covers are constructed either of fabric,

fiberfill and backing (scrim) or of vinyl,

foam, and vinyl backing. In each of the

affected models, one or more of the

filling, face, or backing materials

exceeded the 4 inches per minute burn

rate when tested in accordance with S5

of FMVSS No. 302. Kolcraft estimates

that about 107,000 child restraints

potentially contain the non-compliant

materials.

Kolcraft supports its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

Kolcraft tested all potentially affected

child restraint seat covers in the

composite state and disaggregated state,

and confirmed that all seat covers

comply with the flammability standards

of FMVSS No. 302 when tested in the

composite state (as incorporated into

FMVSS No. 213). Kolcraft also found

that all potentially affected child

restraint seat covers passed the cigarette

burn test contained in California

Technical Bulletin 116 when tested in

the composite state.

Kolcraft maintains that the

construction of the potentially affected

seat covers makes it very unlikely that

the various layers of its child restraint

seat covers would ever be exposed to

fire separately. The layers of fabric are

securely bonded or sewn together

around the entire perimeter of the seat

cover and other areas. Kolcraft contends

that it is unlikely that a large section of

the fabric would be torn away, and

extremely remote that that particular

portion would be exposed to a potential

ignition source. The most common

source of ignition, and the source that

FMVSS No. 302 is primarily designed to

protect against, is a lighted cigarette. As

stated above, all of Kolcraft’s child

restraints passed the cigarette burn test

contained in California Technical

Bulletin 116.

Kolcraft also contends that the

frequency of incidents involving

nonconforming materials or equipment

should be a factor in determining

whether noncompliance has an impact

on safety. Kolcraft notes that, to its

knowledge, there has not been one

incident of a child injured by a fire that

originated in a child restraint in the last

19 years.

Based on the above factors, Kolcraft

contends that its child restraint seat

pads, by virtue of complying with the

flammability requirements of FMVSS

No. 302 when tested in the composite

state and by passing the cigarette burn

test contained in California Technical

Bulletin 116, comply with the purpose

and intent of FMVSS Nos. 213 and 302,

and therefore, the noncompliance is

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

The agency has reviewed Kolcraft’s

application and has determined that the

noncompliance is inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety. NHTSA agrees

with Kolcraft that the noncompliant seat

covers are unlikely to pose a

flammability risk when they are

securely sewn to the seat, which is the

normal condition for these seats.

Kolcraft supported this point by

performing flammability testing under

two conditions: first on the seat and

cover as a composite, i.e., as it exists on

a child seat with the items sewn

together; and second, by performing the

cigarette burn test contained in

California Technical Bulletin 116 on the

seat covers in the composite state. In

both cases, the seat cover burned at a

rate below the four inches per minute

maximum set out in FMVSS No. 302.

The agency granted an application for

inconsequential noncompliance

submitted by Century Products Co. (60

FR 41148) in which the circumstances

were identical to those in this

application. The granting of Century’s

application was based, in part, on the

agency’s decision to grant a petition for

inconsequential noncompliance

submitted by PACCAR (57 FR 45868) in

which the circumstances were similar to

those presented in the Century, and

now, Kolcraft application. PACCAR

manufactures mattresses for the sleeper

areas of certain truck tractors. A small

portion of the material used in the

construction of the mattresses, and

subject to the requirements of FMVSS

No. 302, failed the burn rate test. The

agency determined that ignition of the

noncompliant material was unlikely

and, due to the small volume of the

material, would not pose the threat of a

serious fire if ignited. As a result of this

analysis, the PACCAR petition was

granted.

The circumstances here are similar to

those in which the agency granted a

petition for inconsequentiality by

General Motors in connection with a

noncompliance of the upper beam

indicator, 56 FR 33323 (1991). The

indicator was noncompliant only when

the cigarette lighter was operating. The

agency determined that the possibility

of the upper beams being operated

simultaneously with the cigarette lighter

posed a very limited safety hazard.

Similarly, it is unlikely that the various

layers of the child restraint seat covers

large enough to cause serious burn

injuries would be separated from the

remainder of the seat cover. Further,

even if a large section of the seat cover

was torn away, NHTSA considers the

possibility that this material would be

exposed to a potential ignition source to

be extremely remote.

Although it is possible that fuel-fed

fires from vehicle crashes could

consume a vehicle’s interior, the

flammability of the seat cover materials

would be irrelevant to the severity of

such a fire and to the potential injuries

incurred by a child.

NHTSA’s evaluation of the

consequentiality of this noncompliance

should not be interpreted as a

diminution of the agency’s concern for

child safety. Rather, it represents

NHTSA’s assessment of the gravity of

the noncompliance based upon the

likely consequences. Ultimately, the

issue is whether this particular

noncompliance is likely to increase the

risk to safety. Although empirical

results are not determinative, the

absence of any reports of fires

originating in these child restraints

supports the agency’s decision that the

noncompliance does not have a

consequential effect on safety.

For the above reasons, the agency has

determined that Kolcraft has met its

burden of persuasion that the

noncompliance at issue here is

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety

and its application is granted.

Accordingly, Kolcraft is hereby

exempted from the notification and

remedy provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30118

and 30120.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118(d), 30120(h)

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and

501.8.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 / Notices 24587

Issued on: April 27, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98–11783 Filed 5–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Petition for Modification of Exemption

From the Vehicle Theft Prevention

Standard; General Motors Corp.

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA)

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

SUMMARY: This notice grants in full the

petition of General Motors Corporation

(GM) for an exemption of a high-theft

line, the Oldsmobile Alero (formerly the

Oldsmobile Achieva), from the partsmarking requirements of the Federal

Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention

Standard. This petition is granted

because the agency has determined that

the antitheft device to be placed on the

line as standard equipment is likely to

be as effective in reducing and deterring

motor vehicle theft as compliance with

the parts-marking requirements of the

Theft Prevention Standard. GM

requested confidential treatment for

some of the information and

attachments submitted in support of its

petition. In a letter to GM dated

November 26, 1997, the agency granted

the petitioner’s request for confidential

treatment of most aspects of its petition.

DATES: The exemption granted by this

notice is effective beginning with model

year (MY) 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Rosalind Proctor, Office of Planning and

Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400

Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC

20590. Ms. Proctor’s telephone number

is (202) 366–0846. Her fax number is

(202) 493–2739.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a

petition dated October 25, 1997, General

Motors Corporation (GM) informed the

agency of its planned nameplate change

for its Oldsmobile Achieva car line

beginning with model year (MY) 1999.

GM also informed the agency that the

nameplate for the Oldsmobile Achieva

will be changed to Oldsmobile Alero,

and that the Alero car line will be a

continuation of the Achieva line. The

Achieva car line is subject to the partsmarking requirements of the theft

prevention standard.

In its petition dated October 25, 1997,

GM requested an exemption from the

parts-marking requirements of the Theft

Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541)

for the Oldsmobile Alero car line. The

petition is pursuant to 49 CFR part 543,

Exemption From Vehicle Theft

Prevention Standard, based on the

installation of an antitheft device as

standard equipment for the entire line.

GM’s submittal is considered a

complete petition, as required by 49

CFR 543.7, in that it met the general

requirements contained in § 543.5 and

the specific content requirements of

§ 543.6.

In its petition, GM provided a detailed

description and diagram of the identity,

design, and location of the components

of the antitheft device for the new line.

GM will install its ‘‘Passlock’’ antitheft

device as standard equipment on its MY

1999 Oldsmobile Alero car line.

In order to ensure the reliability and

durability of the device, GM conducted

tests based on its own specified

standards. GM provided a detailed list

of the tests conducted. GM stated its

belief that the device is reliable and

durable since the device complied with

GM’s specified requirements for each

test.

GM compared the ‘‘Passlock’’ device

proposed for the Alero car line with its

first generation ‘‘PASS-Key’’ and

‘‘PASS-Key II’’ devices which the

agency has determined to be as effective

in reducing and deterring motor vehicle

theft as would compliance with the

parts-marking requirements. GM

believes that its ‘‘Passlock’’ antitheft

device will be at least as effective as the

‘‘PASS-Key’’ and ‘‘PASS-Key II’’

devices.

The following GM car lines have the

‘‘Passlock’’ device as standard

equipment and have been granted a full

exemption from the parts-marking

requirements: The Chevrolet Cavalier,

beginning with MY 1997 (see 61 FR

12132, March 25, 1996) and the Pontiac

Sunfire, beginning with MY 1998 (see

62 FR 20240, April 25, 1997). The

‘‘Passlock’’ device provides the same

kind of functionality as the ‘‘PASS-Key’’

and ‘‘PASS-Key II’’ devices, but features

a coded lock cylinder rather than an

electrically coded ignition key. The

‘‘Passlock’’ device utilizes an electronic

sensor located near the ignition lock

instead of a coded key, allowing the

device to incorporate a standard key.

GM stated that when the sensor detects

proper lock rotation, it sends a code to

the controller. If the correct code is

received, fuel is enabled. If an incorrect

code is received, fuel is disabled.

GM also stated that the theft rates, as

reported by the National Crime

Information Center, are lower for GM

models equipped with ‘‘PASS-Key’’-like

devices which have been granted

exemptions from the parts-marking

requirements than theft rates for similar,

earlier models that have been partsmarked. Therefore, GM concludes that

the ‘‘PASS-Key’’-like devices are more

effective in deterring motor vehicle theft

than the parts-marking requirements of

49 CFR part 541. GM also concluded

that based on the system performance of

the ‘‘PASS-Key’’-like devices on other

GM models, and the similarity of design

and functionality of the device on the

Oldsmobile Alero to the ‘‘PASS-Key’’

device, GM believes that the agency

should determine that the ‘‘Passlock’’

device will be at least as effective in

reducing and deterring motor vehicle

theft as the parts-marking requirements

of the Theft Prevention Standard (49

CFR part 541).

Based on comparison of the reduction

in theft rates of Corvettes using a

passive antitheft system and audible/

visible alarm with the reduction in theft

rates for Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac

Firebird models equipped with a

passive antitheft device without an

alarm, GM believes that an alarm or

similar attention attracting device is not

necessary and does not compromise the

antitheft performance of these systems.

The agency notes that the reason that

the vehicle lines whose theft data GM

cites in support of its petition received

only a partial exemption from partsmarking was that the agency did not

believe that the antitheft device on these

vehicles (‘‘PASS-Key’’ and ‘‘PASS-Key

II’’) by itself would be as effective as

parts-marking in deterring theft because

it lacked an alarm system. On that basis,

it decided to require GM to mark the

vehicle’s most interchangeable parts

(the engine and the transmission), as a

supplement to the antitheft device. Like

those earlier antitheft devices GM used,

the new ‘‘Passlock’’ device on which

this petition is based also lacks an alarm

system. Accordingly, it cannot perform

one of the functions listed in 49 CFR

Part 542.6(a)(3), that is, to call attention

to unauthorized attempts to enter or

move the vehicle.

Since deciding those petitions,

however, the agency became aware that

theft data shows declining theft rates for

GM vehicles equipped with either

version of the ‘‘PASS-Key’’ system.

Based on that data, it concluded that the

lack of a visual or audio alarm had not

prevented the antitheft system from

being effective protection against theft

and granted two GM petitions for full

exemptions for car lines equipped with

‘‘PASS-Key II’’. See 60 FR 25939 (May

15, 1995) granting in full the petition for