Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Notices 32871

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: June 13, 2001.

Marilynne Jacobs,

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

ANNEX A—Nonconforming Motor

Vehicles Decided To Be Eligible for

Importation

1. Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7964

Nonconforming Vehicle: 2000 BMW 3

Series passenger cars

Substantially similar U.S.- certified

vehicle: 2000 BMW 3 Series

passenger cars

Notice of Petition Published at: 65 FR

63911 (October 25, 2000)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–356

2. Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7963

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1998

Mercedes-Benz CLK320 passenger

cars

Substantially similar U.S.- certified

vehicles: 1998 Mercedes-Benz

CLK320 passenger cars

Notice of Petition Published at: 65 FR

63910 (October 25, 2000)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–357

3. Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7966

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1996

Plymouth Voyager multi-purpose

passenger vehicles

Substantially similar U.S.- certified

vehicles: 1996 Plymouth Voyager

multi-purpose passenger vehicles

Notice of Petition Published at: 65 FR

63909 (October 25, 2000)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–353

4. Docket No. NHTSA–2000–8242

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1994–2000

Honda VFR 400 and RVF 400

motorcycles

Substantially similar U.S.- certified

vehicles: 1994–2000 Honda CBR

600 motorcycles

Notice of Petition Published at: 65 FR

77690 (December 12, 2000)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–358

5. Docket No. NHTSA–2000–8241

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1991–1995

BMW 8 Series passenger cars

Substantially similar U.S.- certified

vehicles: 1991–1995 BMW 8 Series

passenger cars

Notice of Petition Published at: 65 FR

69989 (November 21, 2000)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–361

6. Docket No. NHTSA–2000–8294

Nonconforming Vehicle: 1998–2001

BMW R1200C motorcycles

Substantially similar U.S.- certified

vehicle: 1998–2001 BMW R1200C

motorcycles

Notice of Petition Published at: 65 FR

77691 (December 12, 2000)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–359

7. Docket No. NHTSA–2000–8281

Nonconforming Vehicles: 2000

Yamaha R1 motorcycles

Substantially similar U.S.- certified

vehicles: 2000 Yamaha R1

motorcycles

Notice of Petition Published at: 65 FR

77692 (December 12, 2000)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–360

8. Docket No. NHTSA–2000–8699

Nonconforming Vehicles: 2001 Harley

Davidson FX, FL and XL

motorcycles

Substantially similar U.S.- certified

vehicles: 2001 Harley Davidson FX,

FL and XL motorcycles

Notice of Petition Published at: 66 FR

7841 (January 25, 2001)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–362

[FR Doc. 01–15327 Filed 6–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7312; Notice 2]

General Motors Corporation; Grant of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

General Motors Corporation (GM) has

determined that some of its vehicles do

not comply with requirements

contained in Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,

‘‘Lamps, Reflective Devices, and

Associated Equipment,’’ and has filed

an appropriate report pursuant to 49

CFR part 573, ‘‘Defect and

Noncompliance Reports.’’ GM 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 in the Federal Register

(65 FR 31207) on May 16, 2000.

Opportunity was afforded for public

comment until June 15, 2000.

FMVSS No. 108 establishes the

requirements for signaling to enable safe

operation in darkness and other

conditions of reduced visibility. Under

S5.5.4 of FMVSS No. 108, the center

high-mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) on

each vehicle shall be activated only

upon application of the service brakes.

During Model Year 1995–1999, GM

produced 3,375,393 vehicles with a

CHMSL that could briefly illuminate if

the hazard warning lamp switch is

depressed to its limit of travel. The

vehicles that may have this condition

are 1995–1999 model year GMC and

Chevrolet trucks and some 1997–1999

Pontiac Grand Prix cars.

GM supports its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following statements:

32872 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Notices

The possibility of unintended CHMSL

illumination is very low, for several reasons.

Hazard flashers are infrequently used in

service. The condition can occur only when

the hazard flasher switch is at the extreme

bottom of travel. To turn the hazard flashers

on or off, one need merely push the hazard

flasher switch. It is not necessary to push the

switch all the way to its limit of travel. Even

when the switch is depressed all the way to

its limit of travel, CHMSL illumination may

not occur. In approximately 50% of the

switches it would be moderately difficult to

get a CHMSL activation. With these switches,

it is also necessary to apply a side force to

the hazard flasher switch (in addition to

having the switch at its bottom of travel)

before the CHMSL might illuminate.

Even if the condition does occur, the

duration of unintended CHMSL illumination

would be very brief. The hazard flasher

switch requires less than a second in total to

turn the flashers on or off, and only for a

fraction of this total time would the switch

be all the way to its limit of travel.

About one-third of the affected vehicles

have incandescent CHMSLs. In these

vehicles, visible illumination of the CHMSL

would not occur unless the hazard switch

were depressed to its full limit of travel and

held there long enough for the incandescent

bulb filaments to heat and become visible.

Therefore, unless the hazard switch was

deliberately held at its limit of travel, and

possibly with a side force, any unintended

CHMSL illumination would be momentary

and as a practical matter virtually

imperceptible.

Even if a visible CHMSL illumination

occurs upon hazard flasher activation, it

would almost certainly have no adverse

effect on safety. Hazard flasher lights are

typically used when the vehicle is off the

road or out of traffic. However, if a CHMSL

illuminated due to this condition when the

vehicle was on the road, a following driver

would likely see a brief single flash of the

CHMSL. As a practical matter, the following

driver might not notice this flash at all. Even

if he or she did, there would seem to be no

likelihood of driver confusion or

inappropriate responses. In reaching this

view, we have considered the following

situations and would invite the agency’s

consideration of them as well:

A driver who turns on the hazard flasher

switch does so in order to alert others to

some situation that the driver judges to be a

highway safety hazard. Indeed, the owner’s

manual in each of these vehicles states as

much: Your hazard warning flashers let you

warn others. They also let police know you

have a problem.

When the driver turns them on, the hazard

lamps on these vehicles commence flashing

immediately after the driver releases the

switch. In this situation, any momentarily

illuminated CHMSL would augment the

hazard alert to following drivers.

If the hazard flasher switch is being turned

off, the CHMSL could be illuminated

momentarily while the hazard lamps are

flashing. A following driver is unlikely to

react inappropriately to a momentary CHMSL

illumination when two hazard lamps are

already flashing.

In many situations, it seems likely that a

driver suddenly approaching a hazard

situation might want to slow down, and

therefore the service brakes would be applied

when the hazard switch is depressed. In this

case, the CHMSL would remain illuminated

by the service brakes as required by FMVSS

108. This situation would pose no safety or

compliance issue because the CHMSL would

already be on.

The CHMSL (and the remainder of the

vehicle lighting) otherwise meets all of the

requirements of FMVSS 108.

GM is not aware of any accidents, injuries,

owner complaints or field reports for the

subject vehicles related to this condition.

NHTSA has previously granted

inconsequential treatment for a similar

condition. In 1995, General Motors applied

for inconsequential treatment for a

noncompliance while the hazard switch was

being used (reference Mr. Milford Bennett

letter to Dr. Ricardo Martinez dated June 16,

1995). The agency subsequently granted

inconsequential treatment for this condition

(reference Docket 95–57, Notice 2 published

in the Federal Register, 61 Fed. Reg. 2865,

January 29, 1996). No one opposed the

application. NHTSA found in that situation

that ‘‘the transient activation of the CHMSL,

a false signal, is highly unlikely to mislead

a following driver,’’ at 2865–2866.

The current situation would appear to be

even less of a highway safety issue, because

(a) the previous condition could occur at

various positions within the normal

operating travel of the hazard switch, while

the current condition can only occur at the

extreme bottom of travel of the hazard

switch; and (b), the previous condition could

involve up to three momentary flashes of the

CHMSL, while the current condition only has

the potential for a single momentary

illumination of the CHMSL.

No public comments were received in

the docket designated for this action.

However, there was a comment

submitted to a related application

submitted by GM. Notice of receipt of

this application was published on

August 7, 2000 (65 FR 48280). There has

been no agency decision yet on whether

to grant or deny this application. In this

application, GM states that activating

the hazard warning lamps on the same

subject vehicles could also enable the

power windows to be operated. This is

a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 118,

‘‘Power-operated Window, Partition,

and Roof Panel Systems.’’ In its

comments urging denial of GM’s power

window-related application, the Center

for Auto Safety (CAS) also states that the

agency should deny GM’s application

regarding FMVSS No. 108. CAS offered

no rationale to support this assertion

except to state ‘‘[b]oth of these problems

suggest the need for the swift

implementation of an actual remedy,

not the broad exemption GM suggests it

should receive.’’

We have reviewed the application and

agree with GM that the noncompliance

is inconsequential to motor vehicle

safety. We can foresee no negative

effects on motor vehicle safety if a

vehicle’s CHMSL is briefly illuminated

as described upon activation of the

hazard warning lamps. The intended

use of a hazard warning lamp and the

momentary activation of a CHMSL do

not provide a conflicting message. The

illumination of the CHMSL is intended

to signify that the vehicles brakes are

being applied and that the vehicle might

be decelerating. Hazard warning lamps

are intended as a more general message

to nearby drivers that extra attention

should be given to the vehicle. A brief

illumination of the CHMSL while

activating the hazard warning lamps

would not confuse the intended general

message, nor would the brief

illumination in the absence of the other

brake lamps cause confusion that the

brakes were unintentionally applied.

In consideration of the foregoing, we

do not deem this noncompliance to be

a serious safety problem warranting

notification and remedy. Accordingly,

we have decided that the applicant has

met its burden of persuasion that the

noncompliance described above is

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

Therefore, its application is granted and

the applicant is exempted from

providing the notification of the

noncompliance that is required by 49

U.S.C. 30118 and from remedying the

noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.

30120.

(49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on: June 12, 2001.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 01–15275 Filed 6–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

Indexing the Annual Operating

Revenues of Railroads

This Notice sets forth the annual

inflation adjusting index numbers

which are used to adjust gross annual

operating revenues of railroads for

classification purposes. This indexing

methodology will insure that regulated

carriers are classified based on real

business expansion and not from the

effects of inflation. Classification is

important because it determines the

extent of reporting for each carrier.

The railroad’s inflation factors are

based on the annual average Railroad’s

Freight Price Index. This index is