13204 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Notices

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.

Wallace Environmental Testing

Laboratories, Inc. of Houston, Texas

(Registered Importer R–90–005)

petitioned NHTSA to decide whether

1973 Triumph Spitfire MkIV passenger

cars are eligible for importation into the

United States. NHTSA published notice

of the petition on January 4, 1995 (60 FR

525) to afford an opportunity for public

comment. The reader is referred to that

notice for a thorough description of the

petition. No comments were received in

response to the notice. Based on its

review of the information submitted by

the petitioner, NHTSA has decided to

grant the petition.

Vehicle Eligibility Number for Subject

Vehicles

The importer of the 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. VSP

108 is the vehicle eligibility number

assigned to vehicles admissible under

this decision.

Final Determination

Accordingly, on the basis of the

foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides that a

1973 Triumph Spitfire MkIV not

originally manufactured to comply with

all applicable Federal motor vehicle

safety standards is substantially similar

to a 1973 Triumph Spitfire MkIV

originally manufactured for importation

into and sale in the Untied States and

certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, 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: March 6, 1995.

Harry Thompson,

Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety

Compliance.

[FR Doc. 95–5963 Filed 3–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M

[Docket No. 95–11; Notice 1]

Ford Motor Co.; Receipt of Application

for Decision of Inconsequential

Noncompliance

Ford Motor Company (Ford) of

Dearborn, Michigan has determined that

some of its windows fail to comply with

the light transmittance requirements of

49 CFR 571.205, Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205,

‘‘Glazing Materials,’’ and has filed an

appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR

part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance

Reports.’’ Ford has also applied to be

exempt 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.

This notice of receipt of an

application is published under 49

U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not

represent any agency decision or other

exercise of judgment concerning the

merits of the application.

Standard No. 205, which incorporates

by reference, the American National

Standards Institute (ANSI) ‘‘Safety Code

for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing

Motor Vehicles Operating on Land

Highways’’ Z–26.1–1977, January 26,

1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July

3, 1980 (ANSI Z26.1), specifies that

automotive glazing materials used in

front, side and rear windows of

passenger cars shall have a regular

luminous transmittance of not less than

70 percent of the light, at normal

incidence, when measured in

accordance with ‘‘Light Transmittance,

Test 2’’ of ANSI Z–26.1–1980.

During the period of October 1994

through January 21, 1995, Ford

manufactured approximately 8,250 1995

Continental vehicles on which the front

door windows had a luminous

transmittance of approximately 68

percent. According to Ford,

miscommunication between Ford Glass

production and fabrication plants

concerning the properties and intended

use of the glass resulted in its being

used in the fabrication of windows for

use in Continental production.

Beginning with vehicle production on

January 23, 1995, front door windows

with a luminous transmittance of greater

than 70 percent have been installed.

Ford supports its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

In Ford’s judgment, the condition is

inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle

safety. Computer modeling studies and in-car

evaluations previously conducted by Ford to

assess the effect of reduced light

transmittance windshields showed that even

a 5 point reduction in the percentage of light

transmittance, from 65 to 60 percent, resulted

in a reduction in seeing distance of only 1

to 2 percent during night time driving, and

little or no reduction in seeing distance

during dusk and daytime driving. Based on

these studies, the subject Continental front

door windows with 68 percent light

transmittance (67.5 percent at the door

window installed angle) would be expected

to result in no significant reduction (less than

1 percent) in seeing distance during night

time driving, and virtually no reduction

during dusk and daytime driving, compared

to glass with a 70 percent transmittance.

Reductions in seeing distances 2 percent or

less have no practical or perceivable effect on

driver visibility based on observers’ reports

in vehicle evaluations by Ford of

windshields with line-of-sight transmittance

in the 60 to 65 percent range.

The stated purpose of FMVSS No. 205 to

which the light transmittance requirements

are directed is ‘‘to ensure a necessary degree

of transparency in motor vehicle windows for

driver visibility.’’ NHTSA, in its March, 1991

‘‘Report to Congress on Tinting of Motor

Vehicle Windows,’’ concluded that the light

transmittance of windows of the then new

passenger cars that complied with Standard

No. 205 did not present an unreasonable risk

of accident occurrence. The ‘‘new passenger

cars’’ that were considered to not present an

unreasonable risk had effective line-of-sight

light transmittance through the windshields

as low as approximately 63 percent

(determined by a 1990 agency survey, the

results of which were included in the report).

While light transmittance and driver

visibility through front door windows is

important to safe operation of motor vehicles,

it is not as important as driver visibility

through vehicle windshields. It follows that

if light transmittance levels as low as 63

percent through windshields do not present

an unreasonable risk to safety, then the side

window glass in the subject Continentals also

present no unreasonable risk to safety.

Therefore, while the use of front window

glazing with luminous transmittance less

than 70 percent is technically a

noncompliance, we believe the condition

presents no risk to motor vehicle safety.

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments on the application of Ford,

described above. Comments should refer

to the docket number and be submitted

to: Docket Section, National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, Room

5109, 400 Seventh Street NW,

Washington, DC 20590. It is requested

but not required that six copies be

submitted.

All comments received before the

close of business on the closing date

indicated below will be considered. The

application and supporting materials,

and all comments received after the

closing date will also be filed and will

be considered to the extend possible.

When the application is granted or

denied, the notice will be published in

the Federal Register pursuant to the

authority indicated below.

Comment closing date: April 10, 1995.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Notices 13205

(15 U.S.C. 1417; delegations of authority at

49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 95–5964 Filed 3–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency

Information Collection Submitted to

OMB for Review

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of information collection

submitted to OMB for review and

approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35), the Office of the

Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)

hereby gives notice that it has sent to

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) a Paperwork Reduction Act

Submission regarding an information

collection titled Examination

Questionnaire.

DATES: Comments on this information

collection are welcome and should be

submitted by March 31, 1995.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the submission

may be obtained by calling or writing

the OCC contact.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

accordance with the requirements of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Office of the

Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has

sent to the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) a Paperwork Reduction

Act Submission regarding the following

information collection:

Type of Review: Expedited.

Title: Examination Questionnaire.

Description: The OCC will collect

information from each recently

examined financial institution regarding

bank management’s views on the OCC

examination. The OCC will use this

information to resolve identified

difficulties in the examination process,

and to improve its service to the

banking industry. This is a revision of

a similar information collection

approved under the same OMB Control

Number and titled Customer Service

Information Collections.

Form Number: CC 2000–01.

OMB Number: 1557–0199.

Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit.

Number of Respondents: 3,200.

Total Annual Responses: 4,800.

Average Hours Per Response: 10

minutes.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 800.

OMB Reviewer: Milo Sunderhauf,

(202)395–7340, Paperwork Reduction

Project 1557, Office of Management and

Budget, Room 10226, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

OCC Contact: John Ference or Jessie

Gates, (202)874–5090, Legislative and

Regulatory Activities Division, Office of

the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20219.

Comments: Comments regarding the

submission should be addressed to both

the OMB reviewer and the OCC contact

listed above.

Dated: March 6, 1995.

James F.E. Gillespie,

Director, Legislative & Regulatory Activities.

[FR Doc. 95–5877 Filed 3–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–33–P

Information Collection Submitted to

OMB for Review

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of information collection

submitted to OMB for review and

approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35), the Office of the

Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)

hereby gives notice that it has submitted

to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) a request for OMB review of an

information collection titled (MA)—

Reports of Condition and Income

(Interagency Call Report).

DATES: Comments on this collection of

information are welcome and should be

submitted by March 27, 1995.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the submission

may be obtained by calling or writing

the OCC contact at the Office of the

Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E

Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.

ATTN: 1557–0081.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

accordance with the requirements of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Office of the

Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) a request for OMB

review of the following information

collection:

Type of Review: Revision—Expedited.

Title: (MA)—Reports of Condition and

Income (Interagency Call Report).

Description: National banks file

reports pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 161 and

other statutes. Data are used to evaluate

and monitor the financial condition and

earnings performance of individual

banks as well as the entire banking

industry.

The more significant proposed

changes include expanded disclosures

about a bank’s involvement with offbalance-sheet activities, certain types of

securities and certain reciprocal

demand balances needed for deposit

insurance assessment purposes. Further,

the agencies would delete certain

existing items, such as information

regarding mandatory convertible debt,

quarterly reconcilement of the

agricultural loan loss deferral account,

recoveries of ‘‘Special-Category Loans.’’

Finally, the agencies would make

several clarifying changes to the

instructions.

Form Number: FFIEC 031, 032, 033,

and 034.

OMB Number: 1557–0081.

Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit.

Number of Respondents: 3,400.

Total Annual Responses: 13,600.

Average Number of Hours Per

Response: 37.9.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 515,440.

OMB Reviewer: Milo Sunderhauf,

(202)395–7340, Paperwork Reduction

Project 1557–0081, Office of

Management and Budget, Washington,

DC 20503.

OCC Contact: John Ference or Jessie

Gates, (202) 874–5090, Legislative and

Regulatory Activities Division.

Comments: Comments regarding the

submission should be addressed to both

the OMB reviewer and the OCC contact

listed above.

Dated: March 6, 1995.

James F. E. Gillespie,

Director, Legislative & Regulatory Activities.

[FR Doc. 95–5878 Filed 3–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–33–P

[Docket No. 95–05]

Preemption Determination

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Office of the Comptroller

of the Currency (OCC) is publishing for

comment a written request for the OCC’s

determination of whether Federal law

preempts the application of a Texas

regulation that prescribes certain

requirements relating to the signs and

advertising used to identify branch