31212 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 19, 1996 / Notices

1Traffic Safety Facts 1994: Speed, U.S.

Department of Transportation, NHTSA, National

Center for Statistics and Analysis, 400 Seventh

Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590.

2The Life-Saving Benefits of the 55 MPH NMSL:

Report of the NHTSA/FHWA Task Force, U.S.

Department of Transportation, DOT HS 805–559,

October 1980.

3 55: A Decade of Experience, TRB Special Report

204, National Research Council, Washington DC,

1984.

disapprove the application, in whole or

in part, no later than September 11,

1996.

The following is a brief overview of

the application.

Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00.

Proposed charge effective date:

November 1, 1996.

Proposed charge expiration date:

October 31, 1998.

Total estimated PFC revenue:

$1,518,409.

Brief description of proposed

project(s): Reconstruction of Runway

1R/19L, Taxiway E and Air Carrier

Apron (East); acquisition of a four-wheel

loader, rapid intervention vehicle and a

Surface Movement Guidance and

Control System (SMGCS).

Any person may inspect the

application in person at the FAA office

listed above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

In addition, any person may, upon

request, inspect the application, notice

and other documents germane to the

application in person at the Wichita

Mid-Continent Airport.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 7,

1996.

George A. Hendon,

Manager, Airports Division Central Region.

[FR Doc. 96–15640 Filed 6–18–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Federal Highway Administration

[Docket No. 96–047–NO1]

Study of State Costs and Benefits

Associated With Repeal of the National

Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL)

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA) and

Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA), Department of Transportation

(DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This notice invites comments,

suggestions and recommendations from

State highway and traffic safety officials,

highway safety organizations,

researchers, and others with an interest

in the potential relationship between

increases in the speed limit and

increases in motor vehicle fatalities and

injuries. Specifically, in those States

that have raised their speed limits

beyond that permitted by the former

NMSL, this notice solicits the

participation and cooperation of the

respective State highway safety officials

in the preparation of the study of costs

and benefits associated with the repeal

of the NMSL, pursuant to Section 347 of

the National Highway System

Designation Act of 1995.

DATES: Comments are due no later than

August 5, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

refer to the docket number of this notice

and should be submitted to: Docket

Section, NHTSA, Room 5109, Nassif

Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590. Docket hours

are 9:30 am to 4:00 pm EST.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In

NHTSA, Delmas Johnson, National

Center for Statistics and Analysis,

Telephone 202/366–5382, Fax 202/366–

7078, Internet address is

djohnson@nhtsa.dot.gov. In FHWA,

Suzanne Stack, Office of Highway

Safety, Telephone 202/366–2620, Fax

202/366–2249, Internet address is

sjstack@intergate.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Speeding

(exceeding the posted speed limit or

driving too fast for conditions) is one of

the most prevalent factors contributing

to motor vehicle crashes, particularly

fatal crashes. In calendar year 1994,

speeding was a factor in 30 percent of

all fatal crashes, and NHTSA estimates

that 12,480 lives were lost in speedrelated crashes. NHTSA estimates that

an additional 23,000 persons sustained

critical injuries, 60,000 sustained

moderate injuries, and 500,000

sustained minor injuries, for a total of

an estimated 583,000 persons injured in

speed-related crashes in 1994. NHTSA

estimates the 1994 costs of speed-related

crashes to be more than $23 billion.1

The National Maximum Speed Limit

(NMSL), enacted during the Arab oil

embargo of 1973 to conserve fuel, was

set at 55 miles per hour (MPH). By

March 1974, all States were in

compliance with the NMSL. In addition

to conserving fuel, the annual traffic

fatality toll declined from 54,052 in

1973 to 45,196 in 1974, a drop of over

16%. As a result of the enormous safety

benefits in the form of the reduction in

traffic fatalities, the Congress passed

Public Law (Pub. L.) 93–643, making the

NMSL permanent. Public Law 93–643

also required every State to certify that

the NMSL was being enforced.

In 1978, the Congress enacted the

Surface Transportation Assistance Act

(STAA), Pub. L. 95–599. The STAA

required the States to submit data on the

percentage of motor vehicles exceeding

55 MPH on public highways with a 55

MPH posted speed limit.

Following the enactment of the

NMSL, numerous studies of the benefits

and costs of the legislation were

conducted. A joint NHTSA/FHWA task

force, charged with determining the

safety benefits of the NMSL, conducted

one of these studies. The NHTSA/

FHWA task force concluded that while

the ‘‘* * * determination of a precise,

accurate estimate of lives saved by the

NMSL * * * is problematic, there were

20,000 to 30,000 lives saved by the

NMSL during the period 1974–1978.’’ 2

The STAA of 1982 required that a

study of the ‘‘benefits, both human and

economic’’ of the NMSL, with

‘‘particular attention to savings to the

taxpayers * * *’’ be conducted by the

National Academy of Sciences’

Transportation Research Board (TRB). In

1984, TRB published its special report,

55: A Decade of Experience.3 The TRB

study, conducted by a 19 member

committee composed of experts from a

wide range of disciplines needed to

evaluate the costs and benefits of the

NMSL, represents one of the most

thorough and extensive examinations of

this important safety issue. Although

the TRB committee recognized the

inherent difficulties associated with

attempts to accurately estimate the

safety, economic, and energy benefits of

the NMSL, the study concluded that

annually 3,000 to 5,000 fewer traffic

fatalities, a savings of $2 billion in fuel

costs, a savings of $65 million in

taxpayer costs were the result of the

NMSL, along with an increase of 1

billion hours in travel time. The TRB

study also recognized several

unresolved issues, including: the impact

of noncompliance; the containment of

higher speeds, if permitted, on a limited

subset of roads; and whether the control

of the speed limit is a state or federal

responsibility.

In 1987, the Surface Transportation

and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act

granted the states the authority to raise

the speed limit, not to exceed 65 MPH,

on portions of the rural Interstate

system. Thirty-eight states raised speed

limits on rural Interstates to 65 MPH in

1987, and two additional states adopted

the 65 MPH speed limit on rural

Interstates in 1988, bringing

approximately 90 percent of the 34,000

rural Interstate mileage to 65 MPH.

Congress asked for an evaluation of the

effects of the 65 MPH speed limit on

rural Interstate traffic fatalities for the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 19, 1996 / Notices 31213

4Effects of the 65 MPH Speed Limit through 1990:

A Report to Congress, U.S. Department of

Transportation, NHTSA, Washington, DC, May

1992.

period 1987 through 1989. NHTSA

published the results of this evaluation

in several reports to Congress, the last

of which was published in 1992,4

estimating the 1990 fatality toll on rural

Interstates in the 38 states with 65 MPH

limits to be ‘‘30 percent greater than

might have been expected’’ or an

increase of about 500 fatalities.

National Highway System (NHS)

Designation Act

The National Highway System

Designation Act (hereinafter referred to

as ‘‘the NHS Act’’) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–

59) was signed into law on November

28, 1995. The NHS Act, among other

things, established the National

Highway System and eliminated the

Federal mandate for the NMSL. In

addition, Section 347 of the NHS Act

required the Secretary of Transportation

to study the impact of states’ actions to

raise speed limits above 55/65 MPH:

Not later than September 30, 1997, the

Secretary, in cooperation with any State

which raises any speed limit in such State to

a level above the level permitted under

section 154 of title 23, United States Code,

as such section was in effect on September

15, 1995, shall prepare and submit to

Congress a study of—

(1) The costs to such State of deaths and

injuries resulting from motor vehicle crashes;

and

(2) The benefits associated with the repeal

of the national maximum speed limit.

Rep. James L. Oberstar, in remarks on

his amendment which led to the

requirement contained in Pub. L. 104–

59, elaborated on the issues that the

study (hereinafter referred to as the

‘‘NHS Act study’’) should address—

To provide meaningful, useful information,

the report should include information on the

costs before the State changes its safety laws,

and after. It would thus be my intent that the

Secretary’s report, due September 30, 1997,

include information on the costs of motor

vehicle crashes in the year before changes go

into effect; and again a year later.

The report should include, at a minimum,

the costs of acute, rehabilitative and longterm medical care, sources of reimbursement

and the extent to which these sources of

reimbursement and the extent to which these

sources cover actual costs, and the costs to

all levels of government, to employers, and

others.

All States are not alike. Each State will

want to know its own data, so that it can

determine whether its problems are coming

from alcohol-related or speed-related causes,

from not wearing seatbelts and helmets, or

other causes, and perhaps adjust its laws

accordingly.

The report should therefore also include

additional factors such as whether excess

speed or alcohol were involved in the

accident, whether seat belts and motorcycle

helmets were used by those involved in the

crash, and any other factors the Secretary

may wish to add or State to know.

NHTSA and FHWA (hereinafter

referred to as ‘‘the agencies’’) propose a

strategy for meeting the legislative

requirements, as stated in Section 347 of

the Act, in this notice. The proposed

strategy is intended to address the

complexities of determining the costs

and benefits of increased speed limits,

while meeting the Congressional

deadline of September 30, 1997. A

major aspect of the proposed strategy is

an emphasis on cooperation between

the agencies and the States that have

increased their speed limits, as stated in

the legislation, for preparation of the

study. It is important that the States

participate in the NHS study process, as

determining the impact of increased

speed limits in a particular State will

necessitate that an analysis of statespecific data be conducted. In addition,

the proposed strategy uses an approach

similar to that used in the extensive

study conducted by TRB, in order to

capitalize on the thorough work done by

the TRB committee to examine costs

and benefits resulting from decreasing

the speed limit.

Data Needs

The agencies have identified several

major categories of data needed, as a

minimum, to conduct the NHS Act

study. These data are critical to

studying, to a reasonable degree, the

issues related to determining the costs

and benefits of increasing speed limits.

The following table presents the

minimum data requirements for

addressing key components of

estimating the safety impact of

increasing speed limits. It will be

important to collect the data described

in the following table for a minimum

time period of one year before the speed

limit change vs. one year after the speed

limit change, if at all possible.

MINIMUM DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDUCTING NHS ACT STUDY

Purpose Data description Performing organization

Background .................................................................. Effective Dates of Change in Limits, Roadway Types,

New Limit(s), Types of Vehicles Covered.

States.

Determining the Impact of Increased Speed Limits on

Traffic Fatalities.

Fatalities—Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) States—state impacts.

NHTSA—national impacts.

Determining the Impact of Increased Speed Limits on

Injuries.

Injury Crashes and Injured Persons—by road, vehicle

types, by speed limit, alcohol involvement, helmet

use.

States.

Determining the Impact of Increased Speed Limits on

Crashes.

Crashes of All Severities—by road, vehicle types, by

speed limit, alcohol involvement, helmet use.

States.

Estimating Benefits ...................................................... Reduced Travel Time—Commercial & Public Transportation.States.

Estimating Costs .......................................................... Economic Cost of Crashes—Before Vs. After Speed

Limit Changes, Medical Costs of Crash-Involved

Persons.

States—state impacts.

NHTSA—national impacts.

Determining Exposure ................................................. Vehicle Miles Traveled and Speed Distribution .......... States/FHWA.

The agencies request comments from

the States and other interested highway

safety officials on the proposed data

shown above. Specifically, the agencies

request comments regarding data

availability specific to relevant time

periods, data accuracy, suggestions for

additional data not mentioned above,

and any problems inherent in collecting

and/or reporting these data.

Proposed NHS Study Outline

The agencies propose the following

outline for the NHS study content. The

proposed outline presents a structure for

addressing the entire range of issues

identified in Section 347 of the Act. The
31214 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 19, 1996 / Notices

5 Interested parties may request a copy by

contacting the TRB, National Research Council,

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC

20418.

outline is an adaptation of the structure

of the TRB special report, 55: A Decade

of Experience. While the data described

in the table shown in the previous

section, Data Needs, represents the

minimum data requirement for

conducting the study, the following

outline presents an approach for a

thorough treatment of the entire range of

issues associated with estimating costs

and benefits of increased speed limits.

The agencies recognize that data may

not be available for all of these areas,

but in the interest of completeness and

to closely follow the TRB report’s

content, these areas are included. In

some instances, collection of specific

data may not be possible. However,

estimates may be available from past

relationships and/or research, or

applying some type of multiplicative

factors derived from other data sources.

Draft Outline for NHS Study

I. Introduction

A. Scope of the study/legislative language

B. Legislative history of NMSL and

requirements

C. Summary of previous experiences

1. Safety

2. Economic

II. Effects on Travel and Vehicle Speeds

A. The highway system: mileage, travel

and safety

B. Amount of travel affected

C. Speed and travel changes across

highway systems

D. Adequacy of speed data for addressing

issues

III. Impacts of Increased Speed Limits

A. Travel Time (Personal, work, etc.)

B. Required Monitoring & Compliance

C. Fuel Consumption

D. Highway Safety (Fatalities, Injuries,

Property Damage, etc.)

IV. Economic Impacts of Increased Speed

Limits

A. Value of the Effects on Travel Time

B. Required Monitoring & Compliance

Certification Costs

C. Costs Associated with Fuel

Consumption

D. Motor Vehicle Crash Costs (Medical

Care, Lost Productivity, Property

Damage, etc.

V. Summary and Conclusions

The material outlined above poses a

number of challenges to assessing the

impacts of raised speed limits. First and

foremost is the collection of appropriate

data to address the safety and economic

impacts. The crash data collection

should be straightforward, although the

timing and availability of a sufficient

amount of data to meet the report’s

current deadline may prove to be one of

the biggest challenges. Another

challenge will be in the area of

analyzing the data to provide estimates

of effect.

The TRB’s report, 55: A Decade of

Experience, is essentially a review of the

existing literature on these subjects,

supplemented by what appears to be

some new analysis at the national level,

based on existing studies. The report

contains hundreds of references of

papers reviewed for consideration in

their report. A copy of the TRB report

has been placed in the docket.5 The

report describes methods used to

estimate various components such as

taxpayer costs and benefits, energy

savings, and travel time. In many cases,

external information was used (such as

the Nationwide Personal Transportation

Study) to estimate, on a national level,

the amount of travel accounted for by

work-related trips, and their average trip

length. In some instances, changes

proportional to the changes in crashes,

injuries and fatalities were assumed.

As stated earlier, one of the objectives

of the current report is to study the

effect of raised speed limits on, ‘‘* * *

the costs of acute, rehabilitative and

long-term medical care, sources of

reimbursement and the extent to which

these sources of reimbursement cover

actual costs, and the costs to all levels

of government, to employers, and

others.’’ This level of detail generally

has been unavailable to the traffic safety

community, with the possible exception

of special, small-scale studies. However,

NHTSA recently completed a project,

Crash Outcome Data Evaluation Study

(CODES), that consisted of grants to

seven states. The CODES study

employed methods whereby statewide

data from police crash reports,

emergency medical services, hospital

emergency departments, hospital

discharge files, claims and other sources

were linked so that those people injured

in motor vehicle crashes could be

followed through the health care

system. A copy of the Report to

Congress (DOT–HS–808–347, February

1996) and the CODES Technical Report

(DOT–HS–808–338, January 1996) have

been placed in the docket. Based upon

the CODES experience, NHTSA

continues to encourage states to link

these data as a resource for identifying

and quantifying traffic safety problems

within states, and for evaluating the

health-care consequences of various

traffic safety policy decisions. In the

absence of such linked databases within

the states, other approaches to

estimating the economic effects on the

health-care system will need to be

employed.

Lastly, NHTSA’s last Report to

Congress on the Effects of the 65 mph

Speed Limit Through 1990 (DOT–HS–

807–840, June 1992) has been placed in

the docket. This report illustrates the

type of analysis of crash data that can

be performed for estimating the effect of

speed limit changes. In this report, a

time series regression model was used

to estimate the data, using annual data

from 1975 through 1986 as the baseline

period, and 1987 through 1990 as the 65

mph period. Fatalities on rural interstate

highways in the 38 states that increased

their speed limits in 1987 were modeled

as a function of fatalities on all other

roads in these 38 states, and a dummy

(0,1) variable representing the absence/

presence of the 65 mph speed limit.

This approach resulted in a model that

fit the data well (i.e., 88 percent of the

variation explained). In general, a longer

time frame permits more stable

estimates than simply comparing the

year before vs. the year after, and thus,

would be preferable for the current

report.

Based on the above outline, the

proposed NHS study would attempt to

address a wide range of issues on the

benefits and costs of the increased speed

limits, using a compilation of Statespecific data and national estimates.

Chapter I—Introduction, would present

an overview of the historical

background on establishing speed

limits, specifically the NMSL, and a

brief summary of findings from study of

the costs and benefits of the NMSL,

similar to the material presented earlier

in this notice in Supplementary

Information. Chapter II—Effects on

Travel and Vehicle Speeds, would rely

heavily on information received from

the States with increased speed limits,

augmented by anecdotal information on

the national impact. Chapter III—

Impacts of Increased Speed Limits,

would present a detailed assessment,

using data collected and analyzed by

individual States, on the estimated

savings in reduced travel time and

monitoring/compliance efforts and the

estimated impact in terms of increases

in motor vehicle crashes, fatalities,

injuries, traffic congestion, and fuel

consumption. As such, Chapter III

encompasses a critical portion of the

proposed study and will necessitate that

the agencies rely upon the individual

States for detailed assessments of the

impact of increased speed limits on

crashes, particularly injury and property

damage crashes, traffic congestion,

reduced air quality, and increased fuel

consumption. It will be extremely

important to receive State information

on these key areas for compiling the

NHS study, as the agencies will not

have direct access to State specific data
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 19, 1996 / Notices 31215

on these issues. Chapter IV—Economic

Impacts of Increased Speed Limits—

would present an examination of the

actual costs saved in reduction in travel

time and the costs incurred as a result

of increases in the crash spectrum,

fatalities, injuries, and property damage,

in detail. As a result, Chapter IV extends

the analysis of the data presented in

Chapter III by supplementing estimates

of increases in motor vehicle crashes,

with the economic cost of various

components of crash costs. The agencies

plan to rely heavily on the State

analyses for compiling Chapter IV and

intends to augment, as necessary, the

State findings with economic cost

estimates and a presentation of national

estimates of economic costs, as well.

Most importantly, the agencies will

have to rely exclusively on State

specific information for compiling one

particular component of Chapter IV,

Section D—Impact on public revenues.

Chapter V—Summary and

Conclusions—would present a summary

of the State and National findings from

previous chapters, along with

observations regarding difficulties

encountered by the States and the

agencies in the analytical process and

general conclusions.

Proposed Schedule

The agencies propose the following

schedule for completing the NHS study

in order to meet the deadline

established by Section 347 of the Act.

PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR CONDUCTING NHS STUDY

Date Milestone

August 5, 1996 ........................ End 45-day comment period w/comments due to NHTSA/FHWA.

September 27, 1996 ............... Publish final notice on NHS Act study methodology and summary of comments received.

October 1996 thru April 1997 Provide technical support to the States on an ‘‘as requested’’ basis for preparing State-specific studies of the

costs/benefits of increased speed limits.

May 30, 1997 .......................... States’ individual studies on costs/benefits of increased speed limits are due to NHTSA/FHWA.

June 30, 1997 ......................... NHTSA/FHWA complete draft NHS Act study report including consolidation of individual State studies.

July 1997 ................................. Draft NHS study circulated for review within DOT and to participating States.

August 1997 ............................ Final NHS study completed and reviewed/approved by DOT.

September 30, 1997 ............... NHS study sent to Congress.

Issues Regarding Data Availability,

Proposed NHS Act Study Outline, and

Schedule

The agencies recognize that the

proposed NHS study outline, while

comprehensive in addressing the

various aspects of determining the

benefits and costs of increased speed

limits, may present difficulties, based

on the timing of the schedule,

particularly in terms of data availability.

Data availability is a key concern for

completing the proposed study at the

Federal and State levels. For example,

while NHTSA maintains data on traffic

fatalities and fatal crashes for the nation

in the Fatal Accident Reporting System

(FARS), FARS data for 1996 will be

available for analysis in June 1997, three

months from the legislative due date for

the NHS Act study. Additionally, 1996

data on vehicle miles traveled, a critical

measure of exposure needed for fatality

and injury rate calculations, will be not

available to FHWA until September

1997, at the same time the NHS Act

study is due to Congress. As a result, the

agencies solicit comments on these

proposed requirements, and are

particularly interested in answers to the

following questions:

1. In the States with increased speed

limits, are there data available in the

State to address the specific areas

outlined in the proposed NHS Act

study, especially Chapter III—Impacts of

Increased Speed Limits and Chapter

IV—Economic Impacts of Increased

Speed Limits? If so, to what extent?

2. Do plans currently exist within the

State(s) to study the impact—safety and

economic—of increased speed limits? If

yes, does the State anticipate meeting

the proposed schedule for forwarding

results of the study to DOT? If there are

no current plans to study the impact of

increased speed limits, does the State

intend to participate in the proposed

study effort by contributing information

regarding the changes in the State

related to increased speed limits?

3. Is the proposed approach

reasonable? Are there issues that should

be studied that are not included in the

proposed outline? Are there issues

included in the proposed outline that

should be omitted or revised?

4. Is the proposed schedule

reasonable? If not, what can reasonably

be accomplished within the proposed

time frame? What is an alternative

schedule that would be more

reasonable?

5. Does the proposed schedule

provide for a sufficient period of time to

evaluate the effects of increased speed

limits? For example, the study is tasked

with comparing one year before vs. one

year after the change in speed limits.

States are asked to comment on the

timing of their implemented or planned

changes in the State speed limit as it

relates to the NHS Act study objectives.

The agencies invite public comment

on the above questions and other areas

of this notice. Interested individuals,

highway safety organizations, State

highway officials, and others are

encouraged to submit comments on

these and any related issues. It is

requested (but not required) that ten (10)

copies of each comment be submitted.

Written comments to the docket must be

received on or before August 5, 1996. In

order to expedite review of this notice

and the submission of comments, copies

of this notice are being sent

simultaneously with issuance to

members of the National Association of

Governors’ Highway Safety

Representatives (NAGHSR) and the

American Association of State Highway

Safety and Traffic Officials (AASHTO).

Comments should not exceed fifteen

(15) pages in length. Necessary

attachments may be appended to the

submissions without regard to the

fifteen page limit. This limitation is

intended to encourage commenters to

detail their primary concerns in a

concise manner. All comments received

before the close of business on the

comment closing date listed above will

be considered and will be available for

examination in the docket room at the

above address both before and after that

date. To the extent possible, comments

filed after the closing date will be

considered. Those commenters wishing

to be notified upon receipt of their

comments by the Docket should include

a self-addressed, stamped envelope with

their comments. Upon receipt of the

comments, the Docket supervisor will

return the postcard by U.S. Mail.

Issued: June 14, 1996.
31216 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 19, 1996 / Notices

Signed:

Donald C. Bischoff,

Acting Executive Director, National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration.

Anthony R. Kane,

Executive Director, Federal Highway

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–15599 Filed 6–18–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

[Docket No. 96–064; Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for

Decision That Nonconforming 1993,

1995, and 1996 Porsche Carrera 2-Door

Passenger Cars are Eligible for

Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for

decision that nonconforming 1993,

1995, and 1996 Porsche Carrera 2-door

passenger cars are eligible for

importation.

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt

by the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) of a petition

for a decision that 1993, 1995, and 1996

Porsche Carrera 2-door passenger cars

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 July 19, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket number and notice number,

and be submitted to: Docket Section,

Room 5109, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St.,

SW, Washington, DC 20590. [Docket

hours are from 9:30 am to 4 pm]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Entwistle, Office of Vehicle

Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–

5306).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A)

(formerly section 108(c)(3)(A)(i)(I) of the

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle

Safety Act (the act)), 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 (formerly section 114 of the act),

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.

G&K Automotive Conversion, Inc. of

Santa Ana, California (‘‘G&K’’)

(Registered Importer 90–007) has

petitioned NHTSA to decide whether

1993, 1995, and 1996 Porsche Carrera 2-

door passenger cars are eligible for

importation into the United States. The

vehicles which G&K believes are

substantially similar are the 1993, 1995,

and 1996 Porsche Carrera 2-door

passenger cars 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 the non-U.S. certified 1993,

1995, and 1996 Porsche Carrera 2-door

passenger cars 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.

G&K submitted information with its

petition intended to demonstrate that

the non-U.S. certified 1993, 1995, and

1996 Porsche Carrera 2-door passenger

cars, 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

the non-U.S. certified 1993, 1995, and

1996 Porsche Carrera 2-door passenger

cars are identical to their U.S. certified

counterparts 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, 107 Reflecting

Surfaces, 109 New Pneumatic Tires, 113

Hood Latch Systems, 116 Brake Fluid,

124 Accelerator Control Systems, 201

Occupant Protection in Interior Impact,

202 Head Restraints, 203 Impact

Protection for the Driver From the

Steering Control System, 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, 211 Wheel Nuts, Wheel

Discs and Hubcaps, 212 Windshield

Retention, 216 Roof Crush Resistance,

219 Windshield Zone Intrusion, and 302

Flammability of Interior Materials.

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: (a) substitution of a lens

marked ‘‘Brake’’ for a lens with an ECE

symbol on the brake failure indicator

lamp; (b) placement of a seat belt

warning symbol on the seat belt warning

lamp; (c) recalibration of the

speedometer/odometer from kilometers

to miles per hour.

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective

Devices and Associated Equipment: (a)

installation of U.S.-model headlamps

and front sidemarkers; (b) installation of

U.S.-model taillamp lenses which

incorporate rear sidemarkers; (c)

installation of a high mounted stop

lamp.

Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and

Rims: installation of a tire information

placard.

Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirror:

replacement of the passenger side

convex rearview mirror with a U.S.-

model component.

Standard No. 114 Theft Protection:

installation of a warning buzzer

microswitch and a warning buzzer in

the steering lock assembly.

Standard No. 115 Vehicle

Identification Number: installation of a

VIN plate that can be read from outside

the left windshield pillar, and a VIN

reference label on the edge of the door

or latch post nearest the driver.

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: installation of a seat belt

warning buzzer. The petitioner states

that the vehicle is equipped with

driver’s and passenger’s side air bags