nhtsa-2005-22654-0037

8/10/2019 NHTSA-2005-22654-0037

1/6

10591Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 1, 2006/ Notices

ADDRESSES: You may submit commentsby mail to: Maritime Administration,Office of Congressional and PublicAffairs, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,Washington, DC 20590; or by e-mail to:

[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Erhard Koehler, Manager, NS Savannah

Programs, Maritime Administration, 400Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC20590; phone: (202) 3662631; fax: (202)3663954; or [email protected]. Informationregarding the NS Savannah is alsoavailable on MARADs Web site athttp://www.marad.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NSSavannah, the worlds first nuclear-powered commercial vessel, wasoriginally launched on July 21, 1959,and served as a demonstration of thepeaceful and productive use of atomicpower. It was part of the Patriots Point

Naval and Maritime Museum in MountPleasant, SC from 1981 to 1994, and hasspent the last 11 years moored atMARADs James River Reserve Fleet inVirginia.

MARAD is considering transferringthe Savannah from its present locationto either Charleston, South Carolina;Wilmington, North Carolina; HamptonRoads, Virginia; or Baltimore, Maryland,to complete the decommissioning of itsnuclear reactor. No nuclear fuel remainson the Savannah (as all of the fuel wasremoved more than 30 years ago).MARAD has a five-year plan to remove

the rest of the irradiated componentsfrom the shipthe reactor pressurevessel, steam generators, pumps andpiping systems. These components have

been tested and found to be Class A orlower, which means they have thelowest radiation levels they can haveand still be considered nuclear waste.The waste would be disposed of in alicensed facility. This collective processis defined as decommissioning.

The Savannah is licensed andregulated by the U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission (NRC)just likeany other commercial utility that

operates a nuclear power station. UnderNRC regulations, MARAD must movethe Savannah from its present locationin the James River Reserve Fleet to anEast Coast port / industrial complexwhere the decommissioning work can

be accomplished. NRC will thenconsider an amendment to MARADsSavannah license to authorize thedecommissioning work. This review isexpected to take two years (20062008),and it will include a series of formalhearings chaired by the NRC in thedecommissioning port.

MARAD is requesting publiccomments on its proposal to relocate theSavannah for decommissioning. Afterreviewing comments, MARAD may holdseveral informational public meetings(and/or teleconferences) addressing thisproposal in Charleston, South Carolina;Wilmington, North Carolina; HamptonRoads, Virginia (to include Norfolk,

Portsmouth, Newport News); andBaltimore, Maryland. If such meetingsare determined to be necessary, specificdates and times for the meetings will beannounced in the Federal Register.

(Authority 49 CFR 1.66)

Dated: February 24, 2006.

By order of the Maritime Administrator.

Joel C. Richard,

Secretary, Maritime Administration

[FR Doc. E62923 Filed 22806; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 491081P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration

[Docket No. NHTSA 200522654; Notice 2]

Final Decision To Partially RescindDecision That Nonconforming 19901999 Nissan GTS and GTR PassengerCars Are Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway TrafficSafety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.ACTION: Final decision to partiallyrescind decision that nonconforming19901999 Nissan GTS and GTR

passenger cars are eligible forimportation.

SUMMARY: This document announces afinal decision by NHTSA to partiallyrescind a prior decision by the agencythat 19901999 Nissan GTS and GTRpassenger cars not originallymanufactured to comply with allapplicable Federal motor vehicle safetystandards (FMVSS) are eligible forimportation into the United States. As aresult of this decision, only Nissan R33model GTS and GTR passenger carsmanufactured between January 1996

and June 1998 are eligible forimportation. All other model and modelyear vehicles admissible under the priordecision are no longer eligible forimportation. As a consequence, theagency is rescinding vehicle eligibilitynumber VCP17, which coveredvehicles admissible under the priordecision, and issuing vehicle eligibilitynumber VCP32 to cover only thosemodel and model year Nissan GTS andGTR passenger cars that remain eligiblefor importation. The rescission will only

bar the future importation of the model

and model year Nissan GTS and GTRpassenger cars that are no longer eligiblefor importation, and will not affect thestatus of vehicles that have already beenlawfully imported under vehicleeligibility number VCP17.DATES: The decision is effective onMarch 1, 2006.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle SafetyCompliance, National Highway TrafficSafety Administration, 400 SeventhStreet, SW., Washington, DC 20590(2023665291).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Statutory and RegulatoryBackground

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), amotor vehicle that was not originallymanufactured to conform to allapplicable Federal motor vehicle safetystandards (FMVSS) shall be refusedadmission into the United States unless

NHTSA has decided that the motorvehicle is substantially similar to amotor vehicle originally manufacturedfor importation into and sale in theUnited States, certified under 49 U.S.C.30115, and of the same model year asthe model of the motor vehicle to becompared, and is capable of beingreadily altered to conform to allapplicable FMVSS. Where there is nosubstantially similar U.S.-certifiedmotor vehicle, 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B)permits a nonconforming motor vehicleto be admitted into the United States ifits safety features comply with, or are

capable of being altered to comply with,all applicable FMVSS based on crashtest data or other evidence (such as anengineering analysis) that NHTSAdecides is adequate.

Petitions for eligibility decisions maybe submitted by either manufacturers orimporters who have registered withNHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. Asspecified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSApublishes notice in the Federal Registerof each petition that it receives, andaffords interested persons anopportunity to comment on the petition.At the close of the comment period,

NHTSA decides, on the basis of thepetition and any comments that it hasreceived, whether the vehicle is eligiblefor importation. Because NHTSA haslittle or no direct knowledge of manyvehicles for which import eligibility issought, the agency must rely on thepetition and any comments that aresubmitted in making this decision. Theagency then publishes its decision inthe Federal Register. If NHTSA decidesthat the vehicle is eligible forimportation, it will assign a vehicleeligibility number. The eligibility

VerDate Aug2005 18:25 Feb 28, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01MRN1.SGM 01MRN1

8/10/2019 NHTSA-2005-22654-0037

2/6

10592 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 1, 2006/ Notices

number is entered on the importationdeclaration to inform Customs that thevehicle can be lawfully imported (by aregistered importer or by a person whohas a contract with a registered importerto modify the vehicle) even though thevehicle was not originally manufacturedto comply with all applicable FMVSS orwas not so certified by its original

manufacturer for importation into, andsale in, the United States.

B. Import Eligibility Petition andDecision

NHTSA was petitioned by a registeredimporter to decide whether 19901999Nissan GTS and GTR Passenger cars areeligible for importation into the UnitedStates. To afford an opportunity forpublic comment, NHTSA publishednotice of this petition under DocketNumber NHTSA995507 on April 16,1999 (64 FR 18963). As stated in thenotice, the petitioner claimed that 19901999 Nissan GTS and GTR passengercars have safety features that complywith many standards that apply topassenger cars of the model years inquestion, and are capable of beingaltered to comply with other applicablestandards. With respect to FMVSS No.208 Occupant Crash Protection, thepetitioner stated that the drivers air

bags on 19901993 models, and thedrivers and passengers air bags on19941999 models, would need to bereplaced with componentsmanufactured to the petitionersspecifications based on the results ofdynamic crash tests conducted by MGA

Research Corporation. As indicated bythe petitioner, these tests wereconducted after it had made certainstructural modifications to the vehicles.

No comments were received inresponse to the notice of petition. Basedon its review of the informationsubmitted by the petitioner, NHTSAgranted the petition on November 15,1999, and assigned Vehicle EligibilityNumber VCP17 to vehicles admissibleunder that decision. The agencypublished notice of the decision on

January 19, 2000 (65 FR 3002).

C. Information Undermining Eligibility

DecisionAfter the notice of decision granting

the petition was published, the agencyobtained additional informationregarding 19901999 Nissan GTS andGTR passenger cars from Nissan NorthAmerica, Inc., the U.S. representative ofNissan Motor Company, LTD (Nissan) ofTokyo, Japan, the vehiclesmanufacturer. Nissan informed theagency that it manufactured threedistinct GTS and GTR models from 1990to 1999, designated as the R32, the R33,

and the R34 models, respectively.Nissan stated that the R32, the R33, andthe R34 models differ in terms of theirstructural design and restraintperformance,and that each of themodels, which followed a chronologicalsequence, was newly designed anddifferent from the type preceding it.Nissan confirmed that the company

received official type approval from theJapanese government for each modelseparately, and stated that it washighly likely that each model typewould perform differently in the crashtests required by the FMVSS.

Nissan also provided a chart showingproduction startand enddates forthe R32, the R33, and the R34 models.The R32 models were manufacturedfrom May 1989 through November 1994;the R33 models were manufacturedfrom August 1993 through June 1998;and the R34 models were manufacturedfrom November 1997 through August

2002. Included in the chart isinformation identifying the productionstartdates when air bags were offeredas an option and as standard equipmentat both the drivers and the frontpassengers seating positions on theR32, the R33, and the R34 modelvehicles.

The agency did not have thisinformation at the time of its originaldecision to grant import eligibility to19901999 Nissan GTS and GTRpassenger cars. Instead, the agencyheavily relied on the results of staticand dynamic tests on two modified1996 R33 model vehicles, which the

original petition suggested wererepresentative of the entire model yearrange covered by the petition. Asindicated in the original petition, thepetitioner had made structuralmodifications to these two vehicles andreplaced the air bags at the drivers andfront passengers seating positions withcomponents manufactured to its ownspecifications. With the benefit of theinformation provided by Nissan, it isnow apparent that the petitioner did notdemonstrate full compliance with theperformance requirements of FMVSS208 and other crashworthiness

standards (e.g., FMVSS Nos. 210 SeatBelt Assembly Anchorages, 212Windshield Mounting, and 301 FuelSystem Integrity) for R32 and R34models because petitioner did notidentify these separate models orprovide crash performance test data onthem.

The agencys decision to grant importeligibility to 19901999 Nissan GTS andGTR passenger cars also relied on thepetitioners assertion that the originalequipment drivers air bag on 19901993 models, and the drivers and

passengers air bags on 19941999models would be replaced withcomponents manufactured to thepetitioners specifications.

However, the air bag production chartprovided by Nissan shows that nodrivers air bags were available in theR32 GTS model until August 1991. Forthe R32 GTR model, no drivers air bag

was offered until February 1994, and itwas then offered only as optionalequipment. Nissan did not offerpassengers air bags in the R32 model.Nissan began production of the R33model in August 1993, offering bothdrivers and passengers air bags asoptional equipment on the GTS model.It was not until January 1995 that adrivers air bag was offered on the GTRmodel. As of January 1995, the driversair bag became standard on both GTSand GTR models. One year later, in

January 1996, the passengers air bagbecame standard on both GTS and GTR

models.Nissan has informed the agency thatit does not possess records that wouldallow it to determine whether anyindividual vehicle had air bags installedas optional equipment. Based on theinformation furnished by Nissan, theagency can only be assured that R33model vehicles, produced by Nissan

beginning in January 1996, had bothdrivers and passengers air bagsinstalled as original equipment.

D. Tentative Decision To PartiallyRescind Import Eligibility

On the basis of the foregoing, NHTSA

tentatively concluded that the originalgrant of eligibility to the 19901999Nissan GTS and GTR passenger cars,comprising R32, R33, and R34 modelvehicles, was overly broad. As aconsequence, the agency tentativelydecided to rescind that decision in part,so that only Nissan R33 model GTS andGTR passenger cars manufactured

between January 1996 and June 1998would be eligible for importation if thetentative decision was made final. Theagency published a notice of thetentative decision on November 28,2005, 70 FR 71375. The notice solicited

public comments on the tentativedecision.

E. Comments on Tentative Decision

The agency received 35 comments inresponse to the notice of tentativedecision. Nine of these were duplicates.Eliminating the duplicates, a total of 26comments were received. Thosecomments are summarized below.

a. General Issues

Ten commenters opposed any changein the existing decision that 19901999


8/10/2019 NHTSA-2005-22654-0037

3/6


Nissan GTS and GTR Skylinepassenger cars are eligible forimportation. Two commentersexpressed the opinion that Skylines arenot unsafe vehicles. Three commentersobserved that there are so few Skylinevehicles in the United States that theirimpact on motor vehicle safety isnegligible. Three commenters observed

that NHTSA should not rescind importeligibility for Nissan Skylines, therebydenying enthusiasts the opportunity toown these vehicles, on account of asingle registered importers fraudulentpractices in certifying the compliance ofthese vehicles to all applicablestandards. In contrast to thesecomments, three commenters were ofthe opinion that NHTSA should rescindimport eligibility for all Nissan Skylinevehicles. Of these, one commenter

believed the market for the NissanSkyline was too limited for businessesto spend the capital necessary to re-

engineer components required to fullycomply with the FMVSS.

Agency Response: Because they werenot originally manufactured to complywith all applicable FMVSS, NissanSkyline vehicles could not be lawfullyimported into the United States unlessthey were determined eligible forimportation, based on their capability of

being modified to conform to thosestandards. That is the case regardless ofhow safe the commenters may believethe vehicles to be, and regardless of howmany Skyline vehicles may actually beoperated on U.S. roads.

Although the agencys original importeligibility decision was overly broad

because it was based on the premise thatall vehicles within the 19901999model years were built on the sameplatform and were all equipped with air

bags, the agency does not believe it isnecessary to entirely rescind importeligibility for all Skyline vehicles. Thereis sufficient information of record forthe agency to conclude that certain ofthose models and model years arecapable of being modified to conform toall applicable standards within themeaning of 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B).

Although the agency has beeninformed that some Skyline ownershave been defrauded by unscrupulousenterprises operating outside the lawsand regulations that the agencyadministers, that is not the reason forthe partial rescission action. The partialrescission is instead based on thereceipt of new information from thevehiclesoriginal manufacturer thatcaused the agency to question the

breadth of its original eligibilitydecision.

b. Request To Delay Agency Decision

One commenter, who describedhimself as a member of the armedforces, stated that he specificallyrequested a tour of duty in Japan so thathe could return to the United Stateswith a Nissan Skyline. This commenterrequested the agency to delay the partialrescission for 12 to 24 months so he andother military personnel may importvehicles before the rescission takeseffect.

Agency Response: An agency decisionto partially rescind import eligibility forthe Nissan Skyline would limit themodel and model year range of thosevehicles that can be lawfully imported,

but would not render all Nissan Skylinevehicles ineligible for importation. Thisshould assure that returning servicemembers and others would continue tohave a sufficient opportunity to importone of these vehicles. The agency notesthat it lacks the authority to create

special exemptions from theimportation restrictions for any reason,including military service.

c. Challenges To InformationSupporting Partial Rescission

1. The Three Models Would Perform theSame in Crash Tests

Four commenters disagreed with themanufacturers statement that R32, R33,and R34 model vehicles differ in termsof their structural design and restraintperformance. The commentersacknowledge that there are structuraldifferences among the platforms, which

they view as minor, but predict thatcrash tests performed on each of thoseplatforms would yield identical results.Several commenters recommended thatthe agency obtain the manufacturersvehicle design documents to confirmthe differences claimed by themanufacturer.

Agency Response: The originalmanufacturer, Nissan, represented thatthe R32, the R33, and the R34 modelsdiffer in terms of their structuraldesign and restraint performance,andthat each of the models, which followeda chronological sequence, was newly

designed and different from the typepreceding it.Nissan confirmed that thecompany received official type approvalfrom the Japanese government for eachmodel separately, and observed that itwas highly likely that each model typewould perform differently in the crashtests required by the FMVSS.Thecommenters have not provided anytechnical basis for disputing Nissansstatements. Based on its review of thepetition and the petitions supportinginformation, including reports of crashtests conducted on two R33 model

Nissan Skyline vehicles, in 1999 theagency was persuaded that thepetitioner had demonstrated that theR33 model Nissan Skyline was capableof being altered to comply with allapplicable FMVSS. Aside fromgenerally observing that the threeSkyline models would yield similarcrash test results, none of thecommenters provided any soundevidence, such as crash test data, toshow that the R32 and R34 models arealso capable of being brought intocompliance with all applicable FMVSS.There is nothing to refute the originalmanufacturers claim that the threemodels would be highly likely toperform differently in dynamic crashtests. In light of the manufacturersstatement that the three Skyline modelswould perform differently in dynamiccrash tests and the absence of crash testdata to support the commentersclaim

that the three models would perform thesame, we decline to accept that claim.

2. Owners and Parts Manuals ShowAvailability of Air Bags as OptionalEquipment in Early Models

One commenter stated that heobtained in Japan a 1992 Nissan SkylineGTR owners manual showing that anair bag was offered for the vehicle.Additionally, this commenter stated thathe purchased a parts manual for a 1992R32 model vehicle showing the partnumbers for an air bag. The commenterstated he was enclosing pages from both

manuals with his comment to theDocket, but did not do so. Based on theinformation he reportedly found in thetwo manuals, the commenter requestedclarification of Nissans statement thatno drivers air bag was offered for theR32 GTR model until February 1994,and that it was then offered only asoptional equipment.

Agencys Response: Based on theinformation provided by Nissan, thatmanufacturer offered an air bag asoptional equipment at the driversdesignated seating position on the R32

sedan and coupe beginning in August1991. We are aware that vehicle ownersmanuals often contain informationcovering optional equipment offered ina vehicle model. The same holds truefor parts manuals. While an air bag wasoffered as early as August 1991 in theR32 sedan and coupe, Nissan states thatit did not offer the air bag in the R32GTR until February 1994. We do notregard the commenters information asrefuting the information provided byNissan.


8/10/2019 NHTSA-2005-22654-0037

4/6


3. Optional R32 Air Bags Are NearlyIdentical to R33 Air Bags

One commenter, an attorneyrepresenting a vehicle owner, claimedthat an air bag was available as a factoryoption on 19901993 R32 model NissanSkyline vehicles. This commenterasserted that this optional restraintsystem is nearly identical to that foundin 19931995 R33 model Nissan Skylinevehicles and employs the same sensorsand electronic control module.Although he conceded that there aredifferences between the chassis of theR32 and later R33 models, thecommenter contended that the air bagsystems installed in those models aresubstantially similar, in terms of boththeir components and their manner ofoperation, and observed that the R33model was crash tested by the RI thatpetitioned NHTSA to determine thevehicle eligible for importation. Thecommenter also noted that 1990 to 1994

model vehicles are not required to havean air bag to comply with the automaticcrash protection requirements ofFMVSS No. 208, and may do so bymeans of an automatic restraint such asa motorized seatbelt. As a consequence,the commenter encouraged the agencyto allow the original eligibilitydetermination to stand, but to permit analternate means of achievingcompliance with FMVSS No. 208 (e.g.,

by adding automatic seatbelts).Agency Response: Contrary to the

commenters contention, informationsupplied to the agency by Nissan shows

that no 1990 R32 model Skylinevehicles were manufactured with airbags at the drivers designated seatingposition. It was not until August 1991that Nissan began offering, as optionalequipment, air bags at the driversdesignated seating position in R32model sedans and coupes. According toNissan, no R32 model Skyline wasequipped with an air bag at thepassengers designated seating position.With regard to the commentersobservation that nearly identicalrestraint systems were available for R32and R33 model vehicles, the agency

again notes Nissans claim that the R32,R33, and R34 models differ in terms of

their structural design and restraintperformance,that each of the modelswas newly designed and different fromthe type preceding it,and that it washighly likely that each model typewould perform differently in the crashtests required by the FMVSS.

Addressing the commenterssuggestion that motorized seatbelts beallowed as an alternate means ofachieving compliance with FMVSS No.208, the agency notes that the registered

importer that petitioned NHTSA todetermine the Nissan Skyline eligiblefor importation conducted crash tests onthe vehicle after replacing its air bagswith ones manufactured to thepetitioners specifications. Thepetitioner did not install motorizedseatbelts in the vehicle to achievecompliance with the standard.

Moreover, Nissan informed the agencythat automatic seatbelts were notinstalled as original equipment in the19901999 Skyline models, and nodynamic crash test data is available todemonstrate that such a vehicleequipped with automatic seatbeltswould comply with FMVSS No. 208.The mere statement that equipmentsuch as automatic seatbelts could beadded to a vehicle is not sufficient toprove that the vehicle is capable of

being altered to comply with FMVSSNo. 208, as would be required toestablish that the vehicle is eligible for

importation under 49 U.S.C.30141(a)(1)(B). Such proof could only beobtained by conducting a crash test thatreplicates how the vehicle structuresand restraint systems perform in a crash.

4. Agencys Reliance on ManufacturersComments Is Inconsistent With PastImport Eligibility Decision Practices

Another commenter, a registeredimporter, observed that because Nissanhad every opportunity to comment onthe original import eligibility petitioncovering 19901999 Nissan GTS andGTR passenger cars, but elected not to

do so, the manufacturer in effectconceded that no adverse safety impactwould result from the granting of thispetition. Noting that NHTSA receivedinformation from the manufacturer afterthe petition was granted, the commenterrecommended that the agency officiallyannounce, in the Federal Registernotices that it publishes to solicitcomments on future petitions, that itwill ask manufacturers to assess thesufficiency of the proposedmodifications identified by thepetitioner. In particular, the commenterfaulted the agency for accepting

Nissans statements that the R32, R33,and R34 model vehicles are sufficiently

distinct that they are likely to yielddifferent crash test results. Thecommenter noted that NHTSA hasdisregarded manufacturers commentsin ruling on past petitions. Thecommenter further noted that NHTSApersonnel have previously stated thatminor differences in overall wheelbasewould not have an overall impact on avehicles crashworthiness unless weightdifferences of more than 500 poundswere involved.

Agency response: The agency does notbelieve that any conclusion or inferencecan be drawn from the fact that Nissandid not comment on the originaleligibility petition for Nissan Skylinevehicles. Regarding the manner inwhich NHTSA obtained informationfrom Nissan in this instance, the agencynotes that it asked the manufacturer to

provide vehicle production data onSkyline vehicles as part of aninvestigation unrelated to the originalpetition. Based on the informationfurnished by the manufacturer (such asthe fact that air bags were not installedas original equipment on 1990 R32models), the agency re-evaluated theeligibility decision. Contrary to thecommenters observation, the agencywas not constrained from re-evaluatingthis decision on account of pastinstances in which it has granted importeligibility to a particular vehicle despiteobjections from the vehicles original

manufacturer.The information furnished by Nissan,which NHTSA did not have when itgranted the original petition, compelledthe agency to conclude that thepetitioner did not adequatelydemonstrate that R32 and R34 modelSkyline vehicles are capable of beingmodified to comply with all applicableFMVSS. In these circumstances, it wasnot appropriate for the agency to let itsearlier import eligibility decision stand.Accordingly, NHTSA undertook tomodify that decision prospectively bylimiting import eligibility to R33 modelvehicles in which both required air bags

are installed as standard equipment.However, RIs are free to petition theagency to decide whether any othermodel or model year Skyline vehicle iseligible for importation.

Unlike past instances in which asingle eligibility decision has coveredvehicles with minor differences inoverall wheelbase, in this instance, theNissan Skyline was produced in threedistinct models over the 1990 through1999 model years. In view of Nissansstatement that the three models differ interms of their structural design andrestraint performance,and would be

highly likely to perform differently inthe crash tests required by the FMVSS,NHTSA cannot justify maintainingimport eligibility for the three models

based on data submitted for one modelalone.

5. Import Eligibility Should Be Retainedfor 1995 R33 Model Skyline Vehicles

Six commenters asked the agency toretain import eligibility for 1995 R33model Nissan Skyline vehicles. Thecommenters noted that the body style ofthe 1995 R33 model is exactly the same


8/10/2019 NHTSA-2005-22654-0037

5/6


as the R33 models produced from 1996to 1998. The commenters furtherobserved that some of the 1995 R33model vehicles were equipped with anoptional air bag at the passengersdesignated seating position. Thecommenters noted that even thoughNissan is unable to advise the agencywhether any particular vehicle was

manufactured with an optional air bag,agency personnel might verify the air

bags presence by performing a vehicleinspection.

The commenters further contendedthat 1995 models that were notoriginally equipped with an air bag atthe passengers designated seatingposition are capable of being retrofittedwith readily available components. Onecommenter stated that a dualsupplemental restraint system (SRS)could be installed in those vehicles. Asdescribed by the commenter, thissystem would include a complete dash,

a passengers air bag module, a dual SRSwire harness, and a dual SRS electronic

control unit.Another commenter contended that it

is possible to retrofit 1995 Skylinevehicles with dual air bags, becausethese vehicles were originally designedto accept the optional passenger air bagon the assembly line. The commenterclaimed that the steering column, thewiring harness, and air bag systemmounting brackets are identical on 1995R33 model vehicles, regardless ofwhether they were originally equippedwith or without the optional passengerair bag. The commenter further

contended that the components neededto add the air bag at the passengersdesignated seating position (e.g., rearSRS control unit mount and dashboardpad with blow out panel) could bereadily purchased from themanufacturer and retrofitted to thevehicle.

Agency response: The originalpetition stated that to achievecompliance with FMVSS No. 208, thedrivers air bags on 19901993 models,and the drivers and passengers air bagson 19941999 models, would need to bereplaced with components

manufactured to the petitionersspecifications. The petition did not

address the fact that many Skylinevehicles within the covered range ofmodel years never had air bags installedas original equipment and that thosecomponents could therefore not bereplacedin the manner described.Because it has no way to reliablydetermine whether any particular 1995model Skyline vehicle was originallyequipped with a passenger air bag, theagency is unwilling to retain importeligibility for that model year.

With regard to the suggestion that1995 vehicles be inspected to determinewhether air bags are installed, ourregulations at 49 CFR 594.7(e) requirethe payment of $827 when agencypersonnel inspect a vehicle. The agencydoes not have the resources that would

be needed to inspect each 1995 vehiclethat may be imported.

Only vehicles originallymanufactured with all required air bagsare within the scope of the originaleligibility decision. Without the benefitof data, views, and argumentsequivalent to what is needed to supportan eligibility petition, the agency isunable to determine whether a 1995 R33model Skyline vehicle that was notoriginally equipped with one or morerequired air bags may be properlyretrofitted with an air bag system. Basedon the information furnished by Nissan,our only assurance is that R33 modelSkyline vehicles manufactured

beginning in January 1996, which haddual air bags installed as standardequipment, can be modified in themanner described in the originaleligibility petition.

6. Requested Relief for Vehicles AlreadyImported

Ten commenters stated that they hadpurchased Nissan Skyline vehicles ingood faith and lawfully imported thosevehicles for personal use in reliance onthe agencys existing import eligibilitydetermination. These commentersrequested the agency to grant a one-timewaiver from the requirements of

standards the vehicles have not beenproven to meet. Given the limitednumber of vehicles that fall into thiscategory, the commenters contendedthat the granting of such a waiver wouldhave a negligible impact on motorvehicle safety. In exchange for any suchwaiver, several commenters offered toaccept certain conditions, such as thoselimiting on-road use, restricting theresale of the vehicle, and releasing theagency from liability for injuries thatcould result from operating a vehiclethat does not comply with all applicablestandards.

One commenter asked the agency toconsider exempting from the air bagrequirements vehicles already importedand in the custody of a registeredimporter. This commenter observed thatthe agency has previously grantedfinancial hardship exemptions from therequirements of FMVSS No. 208 to fivemanufacturers, including Saleen,Bugatti, Shelby America, Laforza, andSpyker. The commenter also observedthat the agency also granted permissionto a vehicle owner to deactivate an air

bag based on a medical condition, even

though the vehicles registered importerdid not properly install a required air

bag.Agency response: An agency decision

to partially rescind import eligibility forNissan Skyline vehicles would only beeffective prospectively, and would notaffect the legality of the importation ofthose vehicles under the prior eligibility

decision. As previously noted, NHTSAgranted import eligibility to 19901999Nissan GTS and GTR Skylinepassenger cars on the basis of arepresentation in the original petitionthat the vehicles airbags would bereplacedwith componentsmanufactured to the petitionersspecifications. Because no commentswere submitted in response to the noticeof petition, this representation was notrefuted. It was only later that the agencylearned, through an investigation, thatair bags were only installed as standardequipment on a limited range of

vehicles produced within the modelsyears covered by the petition. NHTSAhas not released the DOT Conformance

bonds on a number of Skyline vehiclesthat were not originally manufacturedwith required air bags, for want ofevidence that those vehicles have beenaltered to comply with FMVSS No. 208in the manner described in the petition.Comments relating to disposition ofthese and other vehicles alreadyimported under the prior decision areoutside the scope of this decision.Nevertheless, the agency is willing toconsider, on a case-by-case basis, theconcerns of those owning Skyline

vehicles that were lawfully importedunder the original eligibility decision

but have yet to be bond released byNHTSA.

We have considered the commenterssuggestions in light of the agencysauthority under the laws andregulations that it administers. Onecommenter suggested that the agencygrant owners of the affected vehiclesexemptions from one or more applicableFMVSS, such as those granted tomanufacturers under 49 U.S.C. 30113and 49 CFR Part 555. As specified inthose provisions, these exemptions can

only be granted to a manufacturer, andonly in circumstances wherecompliance with a standard wouldcause substantial economic hardship toa manufacturer that has tried in goodfaith to comply with the standard. Theagency lacks the authority to grant suchan exemption to any other party.Although a registered importer may filewith the agency a petition for atemporary exemption under Part 555, asexplained in the agencysinterpretations, the agency would regardsuch a petition as being filed on behalf


8/10/2019 NHTSA-2005-22654-0037

6/6


of the foreign manufacturer, and wouldconsider the circumstances of themanufacturer, and not the importer, indeciding whether to grant the petition.Moreover, since an exemption underPart 555 would only apply to vehiclesoriginally manufactured after the datethe exemption is granted, used vehiclescould not benefit from such an

exemption.One commenter also suggested that

the agency grant owners of vehicles thatcannot be modified to conform to the air

bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208 anexemption similar to the one describedin 49 CFR 595.5. This provision enablesmotor vehicle dealers or repair

businesses to install retrofit air bag on-off switches without violating theprohibition in 49 U.S.C. 30122 againstmaking inoperative safety equipmentinstalled in a vehicle in compliancewith an applicable standard. Thisregulation applies to a limited and

narrowly tailored set of circumstances.The regulation seeks to preserve thebenefits of air bags, while providing ameans for reducing the risk of serious orfatal injury that air bags pose toidentifiable groups of people, such aspeople who cannot avoid sittingextremely close to air bags by reason oftheir short stature, people with certainmedical conditions, and young children.To obtain permission for the installationof an on-off switch, the vehicle ownermust certify that the owner or anotheruser of the vehicle is a member of oneof the at-risk groups. This regulation,which pertains to the prohibition on

making safety equipment inoperative in49 U.S.C. 30122, has no bearing onimport eligibility decisions under 49U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B).

Several commenters offered to limittheir vehicleson-road use, to restrictthe resale of their vehicles, or to releasethe agency from liability resulting fromthe vehiclesnoncompliance inexchange for a waiver from compliancewith one or more applicable standards.Addressing the offer to release theagency from liability, the agency notesthat it is not subject to suit forexercising governmental functions of

this kind. The remaining conditions aresimilar to ones imposed on the ownersof vehicles imported for purposes ofshow or display under 49 CFR591.5(j)(1). A vehicle cannot beimported for purposes of show ordisplay unless it is found by the agencyto have such historical or technologicalsignificance that it is worthy of beingimported for those purposes. As ageneral rule, a vehicle is ineligible forimportation for purposes of show ordisplay if more than 500 of the vehicleswere produced, or if the vehicle has

been found eligible for importationunder 49 CFR Part 593, based on itscapability of being modified to conformto all applicable standards. For thesereasons, the agency has previouslydenied an application for theimportation of a 1995 Nissan SkylineGTST under the show or displayprovisions. To be consistent with itspast administration of these provisions,the agency remains unwilling to extendshow or display status to Nissan Skylinevehicles. Moreover, the agency lacks theauthority to impose mileage or resalerestrictions on vehicles imported for anyother purpose.

Final Decision

Accordingly, on the basis of theforegoing, NHTSA hereby rescinds itsdecision, granted on November 15,1999, that 19901999 Nissan GTS andGTR Passenger cars are eligible for

importation into the United States.NHTSA hereby decides that Nissan R33model GTS and GTR passenger carsmanufactured between January 1996and June 1998 are eligible forimportation into the United States

because they have safety features thatcomply with, or are capable of beingaltered to comply with, all applicableFederal motor vehicle safety standards.

Vehicle Eligibility Number

The importer of a vehicle admissibleunder any import eligibility decisionmust enter on the HS7 Declarationform covering the entry the appropriatevehicle eligibility number indicatingthat the vehicle is eligible forimportation. Vehicle eligibility numberVCP17 was assigned to 19901999Nissan GTS and GTR passenger cars.NHTSA is rescinding that eligibilitynumber and assigning eligibility numberVCP32 to Nissan R33 model GTS andGTR passenger cars manufactured

between January 1996 and June 1998that remain eligible for importation.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B) 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. 061896 Filed 22806; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 491059P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Community Development FinancialInstitutions Fund

Proposed Collection; CommentRequest

ACTION: Notice and request forcomments.

SUMMARY: The Department of theTreasury, as part of its continuing effortto reduce paperwork and respondent

burden, invites the general public andother Federal agencies to take thisopportunity to comment on proposedand/or continuing informationcollections, as required by thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995,Public Law 10413 (44 U.S.C.3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, theCommunity Development FinancialInstitutions Fund (the Fund), agovernment corporation within the

Department of the Treasury, is solicitingcomments concerning the NewMarkets Tax Credit (NMTC) ProgramCommunity Development Entity (CDE)Certification Application(hereafter,the Application).DATES: Written comments should bereceived on or before May 1, 2006 to beassured of consideration.ADDRESSES: Direct all comments toPamela Williams, Program OperationsAdvisor, Community DevelopmentFinancial Institutions Fund, U.S.Department of the Treasury, 601 13thStreet, NW, Suite 200 South,

Washington, DC 20005, FacsimileNumber (202) 6227754.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: TheApplication may be obtained from theFunds Web site at http://www.cdfifund.gov. Requests foradditional information should bedirected to Pamela Williams, ProgramOperations Advisor, CommunityDevelopment Financial InstitutionsFund, U.S. Department of the Treasury,601 13th Street, NW, Suite 200 South,Washington, DC 20005, or by phone to(202) 6226355.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: New Markets Tax Credit(NMTC) ProgramCommunityDevelopment Entity (CDE) CertificationApplication.

OMB Number: 15590014.Abstract: Title I, subtitle C, section

121 of the Community Renewal TaxRelief Act of 2000 (the Act), as enacted

by section 1(a)(7) of the ConsolidatedAppropriations Act, 2001 (Pub. L. 106554, December 21, 2000), amended theInternal Revenue Code (IRC) by addingIRC 45D and created the NMTCProgram. The Department of the


nhtsa-2005-22654-0037

Documents