60878 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2005 / Notices 

of vehicle manufacturers and alterers 

under 49 CFR part 567. Therefore, lift 

manufacturers must produce an insert 

that is placed in the vehicle owner’s 

manual, installation instructions and 

one or two labels that are placed near 

the controls of the lift. The requirements 

and our estimates of the hour burden 

and cost to lift manufacturers are given 

below. There is no burden to the general 

public. 

Affected Public: Platform lift 

manufacturers and vehicle 

manufacturers/alterers that install 

platform lifts in new motor vehicles 

before first retail sale. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 144 

hours and $9,315.32. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments, within 30 

days, to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention NHTSA Desk Officer. 

Comments Are Invited On 

• Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Department, including whether the 

information will have practical utility. 

• Whether the Department’s estimate 

for the burden of the proposed 

information collection is accurate. 

• Ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

A comment to OMB is most effective 

if OMB receives it prior to November 18, 

2005. 

Issued on: October 13, 2005. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 05–20891 Filed 10–18–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping 

Requirements Agency Information 

Collection Activity Under OMB Review 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice 

announces that the Information 

Collection Request (ICR) abstracted 

below has been forwarded to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and comment. The ICR describes 

the nature of the information collections 

and their expected burden. The Federal 

Register Notice with a 60-day comment 

period was published on May 11, 2005 

[70 FR 24860]. This is a request for a 

new collection. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before November 18, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donovan Green, NHTSA, 400 Seventh 

Street, SW., Room 5307, NVS–122, 

Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Green’s 

telephone number is (202) 493–0248. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Title: Tires and Rim Labeling. 

OMB Control Number: 2127–0503. 

Form Number: This collection of 

information uses no standard forms. 

Requested Expiration Date of 

Approval: Three years from the 

approval date. 

Type of Request: Request for public 

comment on a previously approved 

collection of information. 

Abstract: Each tire manufacturer and 

rim manufacturer must label their tire or 

rim with the applicable safety 

information. These labeling 

requirements ensure that tires are 

mounted on the appropriate rims; and 

that the rims and tires are mounted on 

the vehicles for which they are 

intended. 

Affected Public: Tire and Rim 

Manufacturers. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 

$3,611,460.00. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments, within 30 

days, to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention NHTSA Desk Officer. 

Comments Are Invited On: 

• Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Department, including whether the 

information will have practical utility. 

• Whether the Department’s estimate 

for the burden of the proposed 

information collection is accurate. 

• Ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

A comment to OMB is most effective 

if OMB receives it within 30 days of 

publication. 

Issued on: October 7, 2005. 

Roger A. Saul, 

Director, Office of Crashworthiness 

Standards. 

[FR Doc. 05–20892 Filed 10–18–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–22644] 

Notice of Receipt of Petition for 

Decision That Nonconforming 2001 

Bentley Arnage Passenger Cars, 

Manufactured From January 1, 2001, 

Through December 31, 2001, Are 

Eligible for Importation 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for 

decision that nonconforming 2001 

Bentley Arnage passenger cars, 

manufactured from January 1, 2001 

through December 31, 2001, are eligible 

for importation. 

SUMMARY: This document announces 

receipt by the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a 

petition for a decision that 2001 Bentley 

Arnage passenger cars, manufactured 

from January 1, 2001, through December 

31, 2001, that were not originally 

manufactured to comply with all 

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards are eligible for importation 

into the United States because (1) they 

are substantially similar to vehicles that 

were originally manufactured for 

importation into and sale in the United 

States and that were certified by their 

manufacturer as complying with the 

safety standards, and (2) they are 

capable of being readily altered to 

conform to the standards. 

DATES: The closing date for comments 

on the petition is November 18, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to 

the docket number and notice number, 

and be submitted to: Docket 

Management, Room PL–401, 400 

Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 

20590. [Docket hours are from 9 am to 

5 pm]. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2005 / Notices 60879 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, NHTSA (202) 366–3151. 

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. 

Automobile Concepts, Inc. (‘‘AMC’’), 

of North Miami, Florida (Registered 

Importer 01–278) has petitioned NHTSA 

to decide whether nonconforming 2001 

Bentley Arnage passenger cars, 

manufactured from January 1, 2001, 

through December 31, 2001, are eligible 

for importation into the United States. 

The vehicles which AMC believes are 

substantially similar are 2001 Bentley 

Arnage passenger cars, manufactured 

from January 1, 2001, through December 

31, 2001, that were manufactured for 

importation into, and sale in, the United 

States and certified by their 

manufacturer as conforming to all 

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards. 

The petitioner claims that it carefully 

compared non-U.S. certified 2001 

Bentley Arnage passenger cars, 

manufactured from January 1, 2001, 

through December 31, 2001, to their 

U.S.-certified counterparts, and found 

the vehicles to be substantially similar 

with respect to compliance with most 

Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 

AMC submitted information with its 

petition intended to demonstrate that 

non-U.S. certified 2001 Bentley Arnage 

passenger cars, manufactured from 

January 1, 2001, through December 31, 

2001, as originally manufactured, 

conform to many Federal motor vehicle 

safety standards in the same manner as 

their U.S. certified counterparts, or are 

capable of being readily altered to 

conform to those standards. 

Specifically, the petitioner claims that 

non-U.S. certified 2001 Bentley Arnage 

passenger cars, manufactured from 

January 1, 2001, through December 31, 

2001, are identical to their U.S. certified 

counterparts with respect to compliance 

with Standard Nos. 102 Transmission 

Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, 

and Transmission Braking Effect, 103 

Windshield Defrosting and Defogging 

Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and 

Washing Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 109 

New Pneumatic Tires, 113 Hood Latch 

System, 116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, 

124 Accelerator Control Systems, 135 

Passenger Car Brake 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, 212 Windshield 

Mounting, 214 Side Impact Protection, 

216 Roof Crush Resistance, 219 

Windshield Zone Intrusion, 225 Child 

Restraint Anchorage Systems, and 302 

Flammability of Interior Materials. 

The petitioner states that the vehicles 

also conform to the Bumper Standard 

found in 49 CFR part 581. 

The petitioner also contends that the 

vehicles are capable of being readily 

altered to meet the following standards, 

in the manner indicated: 

Standard No. 101 Controls and 

Displays: installation of a U.S.-model 

speedometer reading in miles per hour. 

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective 

Devices and Associated Equipment: 

inspection of all vehicles and 

installation of U.S.-model components, 

on vehicles that are not already so 

equipped, to ensure compliance with 

the standard. 

Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and 

Rims: installation of a tire information 

placard. 

Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors: 

installation of a U.S.-model passenger 

side rearview mirror, or inscription of 

the required warning statement on the 

face of that mirror. 

Standard No. 114 Theft Protection: 

installation of U.S. version software, or 

installation of a supplemental key 

warning system to meet the 

requirements of this standard. 

Standard No. 118 Power-Operated 

Window, Partition, and Roof Panel 

Systems: installation of U.S. version 

software to ensure that the systems meet 

the requirements of this standard. 

Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash 

Protection: (a) installation of U.S. 

version software to ensure that the seat 

belt warning system meets the 

requirements of this standard, and (b) 

inspection of all vehicles and 

replacement of any non-U.S.-model 

components needed to achieve 

conformity with this standard with U.S.- 

model components. 

Petitioner states that the vehicles are 

equipped with airbags and knee bolsters 

at the front outboard seating positions, 

and with combination lap and shoulder 

belts at the front and rear designated 

seating positions. 

Standard No. 209 Seat Belt 

Assemblies: inspection of all vehicles 

and replacement of any non-U.S.-model 

seat belts with U.S.-model components 

on vehicles that are not already so 

equipped. 

Standard No. 210 Seat Belt Assembly 

Anchorages: inspection of all vehicles 

and replacement of any non-U.S.-model 

seat belt anchorage components with 

U.S.-model components on vehicles that 

are not already so equipped. 

Standard No. 301 Fuel System 

Integrity: inspection of all vehicles and 

installation of U.S.-model components 

on vehicles that are not already so 

equipped. 

Standard No. 401 Interior Trunk 

Release: for vehicles manufactured after 

August 31, 2001, installation of U.S.- 

model components on vehicles that are 

not already so equipped. 

The petitioner additionally states that 

a vehicle identification plate must be 

affixed to the vehicles near the left 

windshield post to meet the 

requirements of 49 CFR part 565. 

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 9 a.m. to 

5 p.m.]. 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. 

60880 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2005 / Notices 

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. 

Claude H. Harris, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 05–20871 Filed 10–18–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition for Exemption From the 

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; 

Mitsubishi Motors 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. 

SUMMARY: This document grants in full 

the petition of Mitsubishi Motors R&D 

of America (Mitsubishi), for an 

exemption in accordance with 

§ 543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR Part 543, 

Exemption from the Theft Prevention 

Standard, for the Mitsubishi Endeavor 

vehicle line beginning with model year 

(MY) 2006. This petition is granted 

because the agency has determined that 

the antitheft device to be placed on the 

Endeavor vehicle line as standard 

equipment is likely to be as effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard. Mitsubishi 

requested confidential treatment for the 

information and attachments it 

submitted in support of its petition. The 

agency will consider the petitioner’s 

request for confidential treatment and 

will respond by separate letter. 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning September 

1, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Carlita Ballard, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 

Ballard’s telephone number is (202) 

366–0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–

2290. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated February 25, 2005, 

Mitsubishi requested exemption from 

the parts-marking requirements of the 

theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 

541) for the Mitsubishi Endeavor 

vehicle line beginning with MY 2006. 

The petition requested an exemption 

from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR 

543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft 

Prevention Standard, based on the 

installation of an antitheft device as 

standard equipment for the entire 

vehicle line. Subsequently, the agency 

notified Mitsubishi of the areas of 

deficiency in its petition for exemption. 

Mitsubishi was also informed that its 

submission would be considered 

incomplete until such time the 

supplementary information addressing 

the areas of deficiency had been 

received. The agency received 

Mitsubishi’s supplementary information 

on July 11, 2005. 

Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may 

petition NHTSA to grant exemptions for 

one line of its vehicle lines per year. In 

its petition, Mitsubishi provided a 

detailed description and diagram of the 

identity, design, and location of the 

components of the antitheft device for 

the new vehicle line. Mitsubishi will 

install its passive, electronic 

immobilizer antitheft device as standard 

equipment beginning with MY 2006. 

Mitsubishi’s submission is considered a 

complete petition as required by 49 CFR 

543.7, in that it meets the general 

requirements contained in 543.5 and the 

specific content requirements of 543.6. 

In addressing the specific content 

requirements of 543.6, Mitsubishi 

provided information on the reliability 

and durability of its proposed device. 

To ensure reliability and durability of 

the device, Mitsubishi conducted tests 

based on its own specified standards. 

Mitsubishi also provided a detailed list 

of the tests conducted and believes that 

the device is reliable and durable since 

the device complied with its specified 

requirements for each test. 

Mitsubishi 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. Mitsubishi’s proposed 

device, as well as other comparable 

devices that have received full 

exemptions from the parts-marking 

requirements, lack an audible and 

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 Mitsubishi 

purposes. In these instances, the agency 

has concluded that the lack of a visual 

or audible alarm has not prevented 

these antitheft devices from being 

effective protection against theft. 

On the basis of this comparison, 

Mitsubishi 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 exemption from 

the parts-marking requirements. 

Based on the evidence submitted by 

Mitsubishi, the agency believes that the 

antitheft device for the Mitsubishi 

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. 

The agency concludes that the device 

will provide four of the five types of 

performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): 

Promoting activation; preventing defeat 

or circumvention of the device by 

unauthorized persons; preventing 

operation of the vehicle by 

unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the 

reliability and durability of the device. 

As required by 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 

49 CFR 543.6(a)(4) and (5), the agency 

finds that Mitsubishi has provided 

adequate reasons for its belief that the 

antitheft device will reduce and deter 

theft. This conclusion is based on the 

information Mitsubishi provided about 

its device, much of which is 

confidential. This confidential 

information included a description of 

reliability and functional tests 

conducted by Mitsubishi for the 

antitheft device and its components. 

For the foregoing reasons, the agency 

hereby grants in full Mitsubishi’s 

petition for exemption of its Endeavor 

vehicle line from the parts-marking 

requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The 

agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, 

Appendix A–1, identifies those lines 

that are exempted from the Theft 

Prevention Standard for a given model 

year. 49 CFR part 543.7(f) contains 

publication requirements incident to the 

disposition of all Part 543 petitions. 

Advanced listing, including the release 

of future product nameplates, is 

necessary in order to notify law 

enforcement agencies of new vehicle 

lines exempted from the parts-marking 

requirements of the Theft Prevention 

Standard. 

If Mitsubishi decides not to use the 

exemption for this line, it must formally 

notify the agency, and, thereafter, the 

line must be fully marked as required by 

49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking 

of major component parts and 

replacement parts). 

NHTSA notes that if Mitsubishi 

wishes in the future to modify the 

device on which this exemption is 

based, the company may have to submit 

a petition to modify the exemption. Part 

543.7(d) states that a Part 543 exemption 

applies only to vehicles that belong to 

a line exempted under this part and 

equipped with the antitheft device on 

which the line’s exemption is based.