Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming 1992-1994 BMW 3-Series Passenger Cars are Eligible for Importation, 19364-19366 [2013-07267]

Download as PDF mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 19364 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 61 / Friday, March 29, 2013 / Notices In support of its belief that its antitheft device will be as or more effective in reducing and deterring vehicle theft than the parts-marking requirement, Honda referenced data showing the effectiveness of its immobilizer device. Specifically, Honda referenced NHTSA’s theft rate data which showed a decrease in thefts since the installation of its device. NHTSA’s theft rates for the Honda Civic for MYs 2008, 2009 and 2010 are 1.0353, 0.7830 and 0.8349, respectively. Using an average of 3 MYs’ theft data (2008– 2010), the theft rate for the Civic vehicle line is well below the median at 0.8844. Based on supporting evidence submitted by Honda on the device, the agency believes that the antitheft device for the Civic vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). 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. Honda stated that it will equip its Honda Civic vehicle line with a security system that will attract attention to the efforts of an unauthorized person to enter or move a vehicle by means other than a key on all models within the Civic line except for its DX trim level vehicles. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7 (b), the agency grants a petition for exemption from the partsmarking requirements of Part 541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. The agency finds that Honda has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the antitheft device for the Honda Civic vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information Honda provided about its device. For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Honda’s petition for exemption for the Honda Civic vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with the 2014 model year vehicles. The agency notes that 49 CFR VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:34 Mar 28, 2013 Jkt 229001 part 541, Appendix A–1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR 543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device 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 Honda decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts). NHTSA notes that if Honda 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. Section 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 anti-theft device on which the line’s exemption is based. Further, § 543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission of petitions ‘‘to modify an exemption to permit the use of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in that exemption.’’ The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that § 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself. The agency did not intend in drafting Part 543 to require the submission of a modification petition for every change to the components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency before preparing and submitting a petition to modify. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. Issued on: March 26, 2013. Christopher J. Bonanti, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 2013–07354 Filed 3–28–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P PO 00000 Frm 00186 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0016; Notice 1] Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming 1992– 1994 BMW 3-Series Passenger Cars are Eligible for Importation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition. AGENCY: SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that nonconforming 1992–1994 BMW 3Series passenger cars that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), are eligible for importation into the United States because they are substantially similar to vehicles that were originally manufactured for sale in the United States and that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards (the U.S.-certified version of the same 1992–1994 BMW 3Series passenger cars) and they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards. DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is April 29, 2013. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above and be submitted by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001 • Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • Fax: 202–493–2251 Instructions: Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM 29MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 61 / Friday, March 29, 2013 / Notices received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below. Privacy Act: 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 (65 FR 19477–78). How to Read Comments submitted to the Docket: You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given above. You may also view the documents from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. The docket ID number and title of this notice are shown at the heading of this document notice. Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the Docket for new material. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–3151). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Background Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS 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 FMVSS. 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:34 Mar 28, 2013 Jkt 229001 for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in the Federal Register. J.K. Technologies, LLC. of Baltimore, Maryland (Registered Importer 90–006) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming 1992–1994 BMW 3-Series passenger cars are eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles which J.K. Technologies believes are substantially similar are 1992–1994 BMW 3-Series passenger cars that were manufactured for sale in the United States and certified by their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable FMVSS. The petitioner claims that it compared non-U.S. certified 1992–1994 BMW 3Series passenger cars to their U.S.certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to compliance with most FMVSS. J.K. Technologies submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 1992–1994 BMW 3-Series passenger cars, as originally manufactured, conform to many FMVSS 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 1992– 1994 BMW 3-Series passenger cars 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, 105 Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 109 New Pneumatic Tires, 113 Hood Latch System, 116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, 118 Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel Systems, 124 Accelerator Control 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, 209 Seat Belt Assemblies, 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, 211 Wheel Nuts, Wheels Disks, and Hub Caps, 212 Windshield Mounting, 214 Side Impact Protection, 216 Roof Crush Resistance, 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion, and 302 Flammability of Interior Materials. 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: replacement of the instrument cluster with the U.S.-model component PO 00000 Frm 00187 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 19365 and reprogramming the vehicle computer. Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment: replacement of the headlamps, side marker lamps, and tail lamps with U.S.model components. Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less: installation of a tire information placard. Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors: replacement of the passenger side rearview mirror with a U.S.-model component or inscription of the required warning statement on the face of that mirror. Standard No. 114 Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention: reprogramming the vehicle computer to activate the key warning and belt warning systems. Standard No. 118 Power-operated Window, Partition, And Roof Panel Systems: reprogramming the vehicle computer to conform to the standard. Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection: reprogramming the seat belt warning lamp to activate in the proper manner. The petitioner states that the automatic restraint system in the nonU.S. certified vehicle complies with the standard and is identical to that found on its U.S.-certified counterpart, but that the lap and shoulder belts at the front and rear outboard seating positions must be replaced to conform to the standard. The petitioner states that the bumper shocks must be replaced with U.S.model components in order to comply with the Bumper Standard at 49 CFR Part 581. The petitioner additionally states that a vehicle identification plate must be affixed to the vehicles near the left windshield post and a certification label must be added in the left front door post area to meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565. 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 addresses 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. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.7; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8. E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM 29MRN1 19366 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 61 / Friday, March 29, 2013 / Notices Issued on: March 22, 2013. Claude H. Harris, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. 2013–07267 Filed 3–28–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Fiscal Service Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds: Ohio Security Insurance Company Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: This is Supplement No. 6 to the Treasury Department Circular 570, 2012 Revision, published July 2, 2012, at 77 FR 39322. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874–6850. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:34 Mar 28, 2013 Jkt 229001 A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds is hereby issued under 31 U.S.C. 9305 to the following company: Ohio Security Insurance Company (NAIC # 24082). BUSINESS ADDRESS: 62 Maple Avenue, Keene, NH, 03431. PHONE: (617) 357–9500. UNDERWRITING LIMITATION b/: $1,453,000. SURETY LICENSES c/: AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE., NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY. INCORPORATED IN: New Hampshire. Federal bond-approving officers should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570 (‘‘Circular’’), 2012 Revision, to reflect this addition. Certificates of Authority expire on June 30th each year, unless revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent annual renewal as SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PO 00000 Frm 00188 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 long as the companies remain qualified (see 31 CFR part 223). A list of qualified companies is published annually as of July 1st in the Circular, which outlines details as to the underwriting limitations, areas in which companies are licensed to transact surety business, and other information. The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570. Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6F01, Hyattsville, MD 20782. Dated: March 12, 2013. Kevin McIntyre, Acting Director, Financial Accounting and Services Division. [FR Doc. 2013–06858 Filed 3–28–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810–35–M E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM 29MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 61 (Friday, March 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19364-19366]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07267]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0016; Notice 1]


Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming 
1992-1994 BMW 3-Series Passenger Cars are Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that 
nonconforming 1992-1994 BMW 3-Series passenger cars that were not 
originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), are eligible for importation into the 
United States because they are substantially similar to vehicles that 
were originally manufactured for sale in the United States and that 
were certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety 
standards (the U.S.-certified version of the same 1992-1994 BMW 3-
Series passenger cars) and they are capable of being readily altered to 
conform to the standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is April 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above 
and be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room 
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 202-493-2251
    Instructions: Comments must be written in the English language, and 
be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to 
the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are 
submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are 
provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were 
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the 
comments. Note that all comments

[[Page 19365]]

received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, 
including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act 
heading below.
    Privacy Act: 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 (65 FR 19477-78).
    How to Read Comments submitted to the Docket: You may read the 
comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given 
above. You may also view the documents from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the 
dockets. The docket ID number and title of this notice are shown at the 
heading of this document notice. Please note that even after the 
comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in 
the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit 
late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search 
the Docket for new material.

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 FMVSS 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 FMVSS.
    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.
    J.K. Technologies, LLC. of Baltimore, Maryland (Registered Importer 
90-006) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming 1992-1994 
BMW 3-Series passenger cars are eligible for importation into the 
United States. The vehicles which J.K. Technologies believes are 
substantially similar are 1992-1994 BMW 3-Series passenger cars that 
were manufactured for sale in the United States and certified by their 
manufacturer as conforming to all applicable FMVSS.
    The petitioner claims that it compared non-U.S. certified 1992-1994 
BMW 3-Series passenger cars to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and 
found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to 
compliance with most FMVSS.
    J.K. Technologies submitted information with its petition intended 
to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 1992-1994 BMW 3-Series passenger 
cars, as originally manufactured, conform to many FMVSS 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 1992-1994 BMW 3-Series 
passenger cars 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, 105 Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems, 106 Brake 
Hoses, 109 New Pneumatic Tires, 113 Hood Latch System, 116 Motor 
Vehicle Brake Fluids, 118 Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof 
Panel Systems, 124 Accelerator Control 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, 209 Seat Belt Assemblies, 210 Seat 
Belt Assembly Anchorages, 211 Wheel Nuts, Wheels Disks, and Hub Caps, 
212 Windshield Mounting, 214 Side Impact Protection, 216 Roof Crush 
Resistance, 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion, and 302 Flammability of 
Interior Materials.
    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: replacement of the 
instrument cluster with the U.S.-model component and reprogramming the 
vehicle computer.
    Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated 
Equipment: replacement of the headlamps, side marker lamps, and tail 
lamps with U.S.-model components.
    Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles with a 
GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less: installation of a tire 
information placard.
    Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors: replacement of the passenger 
side rearview mirror with a U.S.-model component or inscription of the 
required warning statement on the face of that mirror.
    Standard No. 114 Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention: 
reprogramming the vehicle computer to activate the key warning and belt 
warning systems.
    Standard No. 118 Power-operated Window, Partition, And Roof Panel 
Systems: reprogramming the vehicle computer to conform to the standard.
    Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection: reprogramming the seat 
belt warning lamp to activate in the proper manner. The petitioner 
states that the automatic restraint system in the non-U.S. certified 
vehicle complies with the standard and is identical to that found on 
its U.S.-certified counterpart, but that the lap and shoulder belts at 
the front and rear outboard seating positions must be replaced to 
conform to the standard.
    The petitioner states that the bumper shocks must be replaced with 
U.S.-model components in order to comply with the Bumper Standard at 49 
CFR Part 581.
    The petitioner additionally states that a vehicle identification 
plate must be affixed to the vehicles near the left windshield post and 
a certification label must be added in the left front door post area to 
meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565.
    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 addresses 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.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49 
CFR 593.7; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.


[[Page 19366]]


    Issued on: March 22, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-07267 Filed 3-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P