27618 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Notices

publishes this decision in the Federal

Register.

Wallace Environmental Testing

Laboratories, Inc. of Houston, Texas

(‘‘Wallace’’) (Registered Importer 90–

005) has petitioned NHTSA to decide

whether 1997 Porsche Boxster passenger

cars are eligible for importation into the

United States. The vehicle which

Wallace believes is substantially similar

is the 1997 Porsche Boxster that was

manufactured for importation into, and

sale in, the United States and certified

by its manufacturer, as conforming to all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards.

The petitioner claims that it carefully

compared the non-U.S. certified 1997

Porsche Boxster to its U.S. certified

counterpart, and found the two vehicles

to be substantially similar with respect

to compliance with most Federal motor

vehicle safety standards.

Wallace submitted information with

its petition intended to demonstrate that

the non-U.S. certified 1997 Porsche

Boxster, 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 1997 Porsche

Boxster 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, 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 Side Impact

Protection, 216 Roof Crush Resistance,

219 Windshield Zone Intrusion, and

302 Flammability of Interior Materials.

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 an ECE

symbol on the brake failure indicator

lamp; (b) replacement of the

speedometer/odometer with one

calibrated in miles per hour.

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective

Devices and Associated Equipment:

Installation of U.S.-model taillamp

assemblies and front sidemarkers. The

petitioner states that the vehicle is

equipped with conforming headlights,

turn signal lenses, and a high mounted

stoplamp.

Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and

Rims: Installation of a tire information

placard.

Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirror:

Inscription of the required warning

statement on the passenger side

rearview mirror.

Standard No. 114 Theft Protection:

Installation of a warning buzzer in the

steering lock assembly. The petitioner

states that the vehicle is already

equipped with a warning buzzer

microswitch.

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 safety

belt warning system through

replacement of the driver’s seat belt

latch and the addition of a seat belt

warning buzzer; (b) replacement of the

driver’s and passenger’s side air bags

and knee bolsters with U.S.-model

components on vehicles that are not

already so equipped. The petitioner

states that the vehicle is equipped with

Type II seat belts at both front

designated seating positions. The

petitioner notes that the vehicle is a

2-seater.

Standard No. 301 Fuel System

Integrity: Installation of a rollover valve

in the fuel tank vent line between the

fuel tank and the evaporative emissions

collection canister.

Additionally, the petitioner states that

bumper shocks and bumper pads must

be added to the rear bumper of the nonU.S. certified 1997 Porsche Boxster for

it to comply with the Bumper Standard

found in 49 CFR part 581.

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.

The petitioner finally states that all

vehicles will be inspected prior to

importation to assure compliance with

the Theft Prevention Standard found in

49 CFR part 541.

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the petition

described above. Comments should refer

to the docket number and be submitted

to: Docket Management, Room PL–401,

400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC

20590. [Docket hours are from 10 am to

5 pm]. 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: May 14, 1998.

Marilynne Jacobs,

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

[FR Doc. 98–13251 Filed 5–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE: 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–98–3848; Notice 1]

Beall Trailers of Washington, Inc.;

Petition for Temporary Exemption

From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 224

Beall Trailers of Washington, Inc., of

Kent, Washington, (‘‘Beall’’), a whollyowned subsidiary of Beall Corporation,

has petitioned for a one-year temporary

exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 224 Rear Impact

Protection. The basis of the petition is

that compliance would cause

substantial economic hardship to a

manufacturer that has tried in good faith

to comply with the standard.

This notice of receipt of the petition

is published in accordance with agency

regulations on the subject and does not

represent any judgment by the agency

about the merits of the petition.

Beall manufacturers and sells dump

body trailers. It produced a total of 311

trailers in 1997, of which 124 were

dump body types. Standard No. 224

requires, effective January 26, 1998, that

all trailers with a GVWR of 4536 Kg or

more, including dump body types, be

fitted with a rear impact guard that

conforms to Standard No. 223 Rear

impact guards. Beall states that

‘‘alterations may have to be made to the

trailer chassis or even raising the dump

box to provide space for the retractable

guard,’’ indicating that a guard that

retracts when the dump body is in

operation is the solution it is seeking in

order to comply. According to Beall’s

application, the company has ‘‘placed

significant resources (time and money)
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Notices 27619

towards the design of an acceptable

guard. We have involved Montana State

University professors from their

Mechanical Engineering department.

We have conducted Finite Element

Analysis and traditional methods of

design arriving at a plastically

deforming guard that meets the

standard, for nonasphalt carrying

applications.’’ The deforming guard

does not retract, thus cannot be used on

dump body trailers. It believes that its

problem is similar to that experienced

by other manufacturers manufacturing

dump trailers. The company states that

‘‘devices used in other countries do not

meet FMVSS 224.’’ It continues to study

‘‘hinged/retractable devices’’ but must

overcome lack of space for a retracted

device. It will strive to develop a device

that would comply with Federal

requirements while an exemption is in

effect.

If an exemption is not granted,

substantial economic hardship will

result. First, it would lose a trailer that

accounts for 40 percent of its overall

production. In addition, ‘‘some

percentage of the remaining 60% would

be lost since our customers typically

purchase matching truck mounted

dump bodies which may also be lost.’’

It also believes that 31 of its 63

employees would have to be laid off if

its application is denied. Maintenance

of full employment would be in the

public interest it argues. Beall’s net

income was $39,317 in 1996 and

$72,213 in 1996. In the first 10 months

of 1997, its net income before income

taxes was $697,040. If the application is

denied, it foresees a net loss of $71,445

for 1998.

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the petition

described above. Comments should refer

to the docket and notice number, and be

submitted to: Docket Management,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590. It is requested but not required

that 10 copies be submitted.

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date below will be considered,

and will be available for examination in

the docket at the above address both

before and after that date, between the

hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. 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.

Comment closing date: June 8, 1998.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.4

Issued on: May 13, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98–13276 Filed 5–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Petition for Exemption From the

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard;

Nissan

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 Nissan North America, Inc.,

(Nissan) for an exemption of a high-theft

line (whose nameplate is confidential)

from the parts-marking 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 partsmarking requirements.

DATES: The exemption granted by this

notice is effective beginning with the

(confidential) model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Rosalind Proctor, Office of Planning and

Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590. Ms. Proctor’s telephone number

is (202) 366–0846. Her fax number is

(202) 493–2739.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a letter

dated November 26, 1997, Nissan North

America, Inc., (Nissan) requested

exemption from the parts-marking

requirements of the theft prevention

standard for a motor vehicle line. The

nameplate of the line and the model

year of introduction are confidential.

The letter requested an exemption from

parts-marking 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.

Nissan’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. Nissan requested confidential

treatment for the information submitted

in support of its petition. In a letter to

Nissan dated January 13, 1998, the

agency granted the petitioner’s request

for confidential treatment of most

aspects of its petition.

In its petition, Nissan provided a

detailed description and diagram of the

identity, design, and location of the

components of the antitheft device for

the new line. This antitheft device

includes an engine-immoblizer system.

The antitheft device is activated by

turning the ignition switch to the ‘‘OFF’’

position using the proper ignition key.

In order to ensure the reliability and

durability of the device, Nissan

conducted tests based on its own

specified standards. Nissan provided a

detailed list of the tests conducted.

Nissan stated its belief that the device

is reliable and durable since the device

complied with Nissan’s specified

requirements for each test.

Nissan compared the device proposed

for its vehicle line with devices which

NHTSA has determined to be as

effective in reducing and deterring

motor vehicle theft as would

compliance with the parts-marking

requirements. Nissan’s proposed device,

as well as other comparable devices that

have received full exemptions from the

parts-marking requirements, lack an

audible or visible alarm. Therefore,

these devices cannot perform one of the

functions listed in 49 CFR 542.6(a)(3),

that is, to call attention to unauthorized

attempts to enter or move the vehicle.

However, theft data have indicated a

decline in theft rates for vehicle lines

that have been equipped with antitheft

devices similar to that which Nissan

proposes. In these instances, the agency

has concluded that the lack of a visual

or audio alarm has not prevented these

antitheft devices from being effective

protection against theft.

On the basis of this comparison,

Nissan has concluded that the antitheft

device proposed for its vehicle line is no

less effective than those devices in the

lines for which NHTSA has already

granted full exemptions from the partsmarking requirements.

Based on the evidence submitted by

Nissan, the agency believes that the

antitheft device for the Nissan vehicle

line is likely to be as effective in

reducing and deterring motor vehicle

theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the theft

prevention standard (49 CFR part 541).

The agency believes that the device

will provide four of the five types of

performance listed in 49 CFR

543.6(a)(3): promoting activation;

preventing defeat or circumvention of

the device by unauthorized persons;

preventing operation of the vehicle by