[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 173 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46899-46900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22538]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. 96-048; Notice 2]


Decision That Certain Nonconforming Mitsubishi Pajero Multi-
Purpose Passenger Vehicles Are Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of decision by NHTSA that certain nonconforming 1984 
Mitsubishi Pajero multi-purpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) are eligible 
for importation.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the decision by NHTSA that 1984 
Mitsubishi Pajero MPVs that were not originally manufactured to comply 
with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, are 
eligible for importation into the United States because they are 
substantially similar to a vehicle originally manufactured for 
importation into and sale in the United States and certified by its 
manufacturer as complying with the safety standards (the 1984 
Mitsubishi Montero), and they are capable of being readily altered to 
conform to the standards.

DATE: This decision is effective September 5, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Entwistle, Office of Vehicle 
Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-5306).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30141(a)(1)(A) (formerly section 
108(c)(3)(A)(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. Sec. 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.
    Champagne Imports, Inc. of Lansdale, Pennsylvania (``Champagne'') 
(Registered Importer No. R-90-009) petitioned NHTSA to decide whether 
1984 Mitsubishi Pajero MPVs are eligible for importation into the 
United States. NHTSA published notice of the petition on May 20, 1996 
(61 FR 25269) to afford an opportunity for public comment. As stated in 
the notice of petition, the vehicle which Champagne believes is 
substantially similar is the 1984 Mitsubishi Montero that was 
manufactured for importation into, and sale in, the United States and 
certified by its manufacturer as conforming to all applicable Federal 
motor vehicle safety standards.
    The petitioner contended that it carefully compared the 1984 
Mitsubishi Pajero to the 1984 Mitsubishi Montero, and found the two 
models to be substantially similar with respect to compliance with most 
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
    Champagne submitted information with its petition intended to 
demonstrate that the 1984 Mitsubishi Pajero, as originally 
manufactured, conforms to many Federal motor vehicle safety standards 
in the same manner as the 1984 Mitsubishi Montero that was offered for 
sale in the United States, or is capable of being readily altered to 
conform to those standards.
    Specifically, the petitioner claimed that the 1984 Mitsubishi 
Pajero is identical to the certified 1984 Mitsubishi Montero with 
respect to compliance with Standard 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, 113 Hood Latch Systems, 116 Brake 
Fluid, 119 New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles other than Passenger Cars, 
124 Accelerator Control Systems, 201 Occupant Protection in Interior 
Impact, 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, 219 
Windshield Zone Intrusion, and 302 Flammability of Interior Materials.
    Petitioner also contended that the vehicle is 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 a noncomplying symbol on the brake 
failure indicator lamp; (b) installation of a seat belt warning lamp 
that displays the appropriate symbol; (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 headlamp assemblies which 
incorporate headlamps with DOT markings; (b) installation of front and 
rear sidemarker/reflector assemblies; (c) installation of U.S.-model 
taillamp assemblies.
    Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors: replacement of the convex 
passenger side rear view mirror.
    Standard No. 114 Theft Protection: installation of a buzzer 
microswitch in the steering lock assembly, and a warning buzzer.
    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. 120 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other 
than Passenger Cars: installation of a tire information placard.
    Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection: (a) installation of a 
U.S.-model seat belt in the driver's position, or a belt webbing-
actuated microswitch inside the driver's seat belt retractor; (b) 
installation of an ignition switch-actuated seat belt warning lamp and 
buzzer. The petitioner stated that the vehicle is equipped at each 
front designated seating position with a

[[Page 46900]]

combination lap and shoulder restraint that adjusts by means of an 
automatic retractor and releases by means of a single push button. The 
petitioner further states that the vehicle is equipped with a 
combination lap and shoulder restraint that releases by means of a 
single push button at each rear outboard seating position, and with a 
lap belt at the rear center seating position.
    Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity: installation of a rollover 
valve in the fuel tank vent line.
    One comment was received in response to the notice of petition, 
from Mitsubishi Motors R&D of America, Inc. (``Mitsubishi''), the 
United States representative of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, the 
vehicle's manufacturer. In its comment, Mitsubishi stated that based 
upon a review of the petition and a partial evaluation of the 1984 
Mitsubishi Pajero, it believes that the vehicle may not be capable of 
being readily altered to conform to all applicable Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. Mitsubishi noted that in addition to the 
nonconformities identified in the petition, the components on the 1984 
Mitsubishi Pajero that are subject to Standard No. 203, Impact 
Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System, are not 
identical to those found on the 1984 Mitsubishi Montero. As a result, 
Mitsubishi contended that the 1984 Mitsubishi Pajero would have to be 
modified to conform to the standard, and then tested in accordance with 
the standard to ensure that conformity. Mitsubishi also contended that 
the 1984 Mitsubishi Pajero does not conform to Standard No. 204, 
Steering Control Rearward Displacement, because it is not equipped with 
the same energy-absorbing steering shaft as that found on the 1984 
Mitsubishi Montero. As a result, Mitsubishi contended that the steering 
shaft would have to be modified and tested in accordance with the 
standard.
    NHTSA accorded Champagne an opportunity to respond to Mitsubishi's 
comments. In its response, Champagne observed that Mitsubishi did not 
furnish specifics to support its stated belief that the 1984 Mitsubishi 
Pajero may not be capable of being readily altered to conform to all 
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Champagne expressed 
complete confidence that the vehicle is capable of being so altered. To 
address the concern that Mitsubishi raised regarding the vehicle's 
compliance with Standard Nos. 203 and 204, Champagne stated that it 
will replace the steering wheel and steering shaft on the 1984 
Mitsubishi Pajero with U.S.-model components.
    NHTSA has reviewed each of the issues that Mitsubishi has raised 
regarding Champagne's petition. NHTSA believes that Champagne's 
responses adequately address each of those issues. NHTSA further notes 
that the modifications described by Champagne have been performed with 
relative ease on thousands of nonconforming vehicles imported over the 
years, and would not preclude the 1984 Mitsubishi Pajero from being 
found ``capable of being readily altered to comply with applicable 
motor vehicle safety standards.''
    NHTSA has accordingly decided to grant the petition.

Vehicle Eligibility Number for Subject Vehicles

    The importer of a vehicle admissible under any final decision must 
indicate on the form HS-7 accompanying entry the appropriate vehicle 
eligibility number indicating that the vehicle is eligible for entry. 
VSP-170 is the vehicle eligibility number assigned to vehicles 
admissible under this decision.

Final Decision

    Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides 
that a 1984 Mitsubishi Pajero that was not originally manufactured to 
comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, is 
substantially similar to a 1984 Mitsubishi Montero that was originally 
manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States and 
certified under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30115, and is capable of being readily 
altered to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141 (a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; 
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
    Issued on: August 29, 1996.
Marilynne Jacobs,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 96-22538 Filed 9-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P