Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices 6249

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration

[Docket No. MARAD–2000–6856]

Information Collection Available for

Public Comments and

Recommendations

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this

notice announces the Maritime

Administration’s (MARAD) intentions

to request approval for three years of an

existing information collection entitled

‘‘Determination of Fair and Reasonable

Rates for the Carriage of Bulk and

Packaged Cargoes on U.S.-flag

Commercial Vessels.’’

DATES: Comments should be submitted

on or before April 10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Olsen, Office of Financial and

Rate Approvals, Maritime

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Room 8117, Washington, DC 20590,

telephone number—202–366–2313.

Copies of this collection can also be

obtained from that office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title of Collection: Determination of

Fair and Reasonable Rates for the

Carriage of Bulk and Packaged Cargoes

on U.S.-flag Commercial Vessels.

Type of Request: Approval of an

existing information collection.

OMB Control Number: 2133–0514.

Form Number: None.

Expiration Date of Approval: Three

years from the date of approval.

Summary of Collection of

Information: This collection of

information requires U.S.-flag operators

to submit vessel operating costs and

capital costs data to MARAD officials on

an annual basis. The costs are used by

MARAD in determining fair and

reasonable guideline rates for the

carriage of preference cargoes on U.S.-

flag vessels. In addition, U.S.-flag vessel

operators are required to submit Post

Voyage Reports to MARAD after

completion of a cargo preference

voyage.

Need and Use of the Information: The

information collection is used by

MARAD officials to calculate fair and

reasonable rates for U.S.-flag vessels

engaged in the carriage of preference

cargoes.

Description of Respondents: U.S.

citizens that own and/or operate U.S.-

flag vessels.

Annual Responses: 160 responses.

Annual Burden: 640 hours.

Comments: Comments should refer to

the docket number that appears at the

top of this document. Written comments

may be submitted to the Docket Clerk,

U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590. Comments may also be

submitted by electronic means via the

Internet at http://dmses.dot.gov.submit.

Specifically, address whether this

information collection is necessary for

proper performance of the function of

the agency and will have practical

utility, accuracy of the burden

estimates, ways to minimize this

burden, and ways to enhance quality,

utility, and clarity of the information to

be collected. All comments received

will be available for examination at the

above address between 10 a.m. and 5

p.m., et Monday through Friday, except

Federal Holidays. An electronic version

of this document is available on the

World Wide Web at http://dms.dot.gov.

By Order of the Maritime Administrator.P=’02’≤

Dated: February 2, 2000.

Joel C. Richard,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–2749 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–99–6478; Notice 2]

Advanced Bus Industries, LLC; Grant

of Application for Temporary

Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 105

For the reasons given below, we are

granting the application by Advanced

Bus Industries, LLC, of Columbus, Ohio,

(‘‘ABI’’) for a temporary exemption for

its MSV small bus from the requirement

of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.

105 Hydraulic and Electric Brake

Systems that a service brake system be

provided on all wheels. ABI applied for

the exemption on the basis that it ‘‘is

otherwise unable to sell a motor vehicle

whose overall level of safety is

equivalent to or exceeds the overall

level of safety of nonexempted motor

vehicles.’’ 49 CFR 555.6(d).

We published notice of receipt of the

application on November 17, 1999 (64

FR 62740), and received no comments

on it.

The discussion that follows is based

on information contained in ABI’s

application.

ABI’s Reasons Why it Needs a

Temporary Exemption

Paragraph S5.1 of Standard No. 105

requires motor vehicles to which the

standard applies to be equipped with a

service brake system acting on all

wheels. ABI applied on behalf of its

‘‘MSV Test and Development Vehicle,’’

a small bus with a GVWR of 13,500

pounds.

ABI described the configuration of the

MSV by saying that the four-wheel

independent-suspension support is

augmented by a small-wheeled tag axle.

The tag axle is located behind the two

rear-independent suspension wheels.

The four independent-suspension

wheels are fitted with hydraulic-caliper

disc brakes but the two small wheels of

the tag axle are not fitted with brakes.

ABI asked to be excused from providing

brakes for the wheels of the tag axle.

The MSV was originally developed

without the tag axle, but pre-production

changes increased the gross weight on

the two rear wheels beyond the rated

load capacity of the rear tires. ABI has

added a Dexter tag axle to support the

additional weight.

The standard-equipment brakes

operate with a low displacement of

hydraulic fluid at a pressure of

approximately 1,600 psi. The vehicle is

equipped with an antilock braking

system (ABS). However, ‘‘there is no

commercially-available tag axle with a

braking system that is compatible with

the vehicle’s main service brake

system.’’ Absent an exemption, ABI will

not be able to sell the production

version of the MSV. While any

exemption provided is in effect, ABI

intends ‘‘to develop a new highercapacity, rear wheel suspension system

that will eliminate the need for the tag

axle’’, and does not anticipate selling

more than 75 vehicles for any 12-month

period that the exemption is in effect.

ABI’s Reasons Why the Overall Level of

Safety of the MSV Is at Least Equal to

That of a Complying Motor Vehicle

Although the MSV does not contain

any safety features other than those

required by the Federal motor vehicle

safety standards, ABI argued that it

otherwise exceeds the requirements of

Standard No. 105 ‘‘and easily complies

with brake-in-turn (stability and control)

standards expected to be proposed by

NHTSA in the near future.’’

The company has tested the MSV

service brake system to the requirements

of Standard No. 105, and enclosed a

copy of the test report with its petition.

The report stated that ‘‘even without

brakes on the tag axle, the vehicle was

still able to meet all of the performance

6250 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices

requirements of FMVSS 105 by a

significant margin.’’ (Test No. RAI–ABI–

01, Radlinski & Associates, Inc., August

1999, p. 2). The report also concluded

that the results demonstrated ‘‘that the

tag axle, which only carries 1,500 lbs

(11 percent of the total weight), does not

really need brakes in order for the

vehicle to provide safe stopping

performance as defined by the

requirements of the standard’’ (id., p. 2).

ABI’s Reasons Why an Exemption

Would Be Consistent With the Public

Interest and Objectives of Motor

Vehicle Safety

ABI argued that an exemption would

be in the public interest and consistent

with traffic safety objectives because

granting the exemption ‘‘will permit

public-transit use of the advanced

features of the MSV bus while fulfilling

the letter, and the intent, of the FMVSS

standards.’’ These advanced features are

‘‘significantly improved ride and

handling characteristics compared to

existing small buses and the MSV’s

stainless steel frame and FRP body will

be more durable than conventionallyconstructed buses in this class.’’ In

addition, the company argued that the

test report shows that the braking

performance, even without brakes on

the tag axle, significantly exceeds the

requirements of Standard No. 105.

Our Findings

ABI is presently unable to sell its

MSV because the bus does not provide

a service brake system acting on all

wheels as required by S5.1 of Standard

No. 105. Although the four principal

wheels are part of the service brake

system, the two smaller wheels of the

bus’s tag axle are not part of the overall

service brake system. The lack of a

service brake system on the tag axle

wheels does not create a noncompliance

with the stopping distance

specifications of Standard No. 105.

Indeed, the bus is designed to exceed

these by, in its words, ‘‘a significant

margin.’’ In this sense, the overall level

of safety of the MSV may exceed that of

a similar bus with a complying brake

system.

Even though the anticipated

production of the bus is small, the

vehicles serve the public interest by

providing mass transportation in the

markets where they will be sold and

operated.

Accordingly we find that, to require

compliance would prevent ABI from

selling a motor vehicle whose overall

level of safety is equivalent to or

exceeds the overall level of safety of

nonexempted motor vehicles, and that a

temporary exemption is in the public

interest and consistent with the

objectives of traffic safety. Accordingly,

Advanced Bus Industries is hereby

granted NHTSA Exemption No. 2000–1

from the requirement in S5.1 of 49 CFR

571.105 Standard No. 105, Hydraulic

and electric brake systems, that its MSV

bus be equipped with a service brake

system on the two wheels of the bus’s

tag axle. The exemption shall expire

January 1, 2002.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Issued on: February 2, 2000.

Rosalyn G. Millman,

Acting Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–2719 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–99–6586; Notice 01]

RIN 2127–AH76

Preliminary Theft Data; Motor Vehicle

Theft Prevention Standard

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Transportation.

ACTION: Publication of preliminary theft

data; request for comments.

SUMMARY: This document requests

comments on data about passenger

motor vehicle thefts that occurred in

calendar year (CY) 1998, including theft

rates for existing passenger motor

vehicle lines manufactured in model

year (MY) 1998. The theft data

preliminarily indicate that the vehicle

theft rate for CY/MY 1998 vehicles (2.53

thefts per thousand vehicles) decreased

by 17.05 percent from the theft rate for

CY/MY 1997 vehicles (3.05 thefts per

thousand vehicles).

Publication of these data fulfills

NHTSA’s statutory obligation to

periodically obtain accurate and timely

theft data, and publish the information

for review and comment.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before April 10, 2000.

ADDRESSES: All comments should refer

to the docket number and notice

number cited in the heading of this

document and be submitted, preferably

with two copies to: U.S. Department of

Transportation, Dockets, Room PL–401,

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20590. Docket hours are from 10:00

am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Rosalind Proctor, Office of Planning and

Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590. Ms. Proctor’s telephone number

is (202) 366–0846. Her fax number is

(202) 493–2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA

administers a program for reducing

motor vehicle theft. The central feature

of this program is the Federal Motor

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 49

CFR Part 541. The standard specifies

performance requirements for inscribing

or affixing vehicle identification

numbers (VINs) onto certain major

original equipment and replacement

parts of high-theft lines of passenger

motor vehicles.

The agency is required by 49 U.S.C.

33104(b)(4) to periodically obtain, from

the most reliable source, accurate and

timely theft data, and publish the data

for review and comment. To fulfill the

§ 33104(b)(4) mandate, this document

reports the preliminary theft data for CY

1998, the most recent calendar year for

which data are available.

In calculating the 1998 theft rates,

NHTSA followed the same procedures it

used in calculating the MY 1997 theft

rates. (For 1997 theft data calculations,

see 64 FR 41183, July 29, 1999). As in

all previous reports, NHTSA’s data were

based on information provided to the

agency by the National Crime

Information Center (NCIC) of the

Federal Bureau of Investigation. The

NCIC is a governmental system that

receives vehicle theft information from

nearly 23,000 criminal justice agencies

and other law enforcement authorities

throughout the United States. The NCIC

data also include reported thefts of selfinsured and uninsured vehicles, not all

of which are reported to other data

sources.

The 1998 theft rate for each vehicle

line was calculated by dividing the

number of reported thefts of MY 1998

vehicles of that line stolen during

calendar year 1998, by the total number

of vehicles in that line manufactured for

MY 1998, as reported by manufacturers

to the Environmental Protection

Agency.

The preliminary 1998 theft data show

a decrease in the vehicle theft rate when

compared to the theft rate experienced

in CY/MY 1997. The preliminary theft

rate for MY 1998 passenger vehicles

stolen in calendar year 1998 decreased

to 2.53 thefts per thousand vehicles

produced, a decrease of 17.05 percent

from the rate of 3.05 thefts per thousand

vehicles experienced by MY 1997

vehicles in CY 1997. For MY 1998

vehicles, out of a total of 196 vehicle

lines, 41 lines had a theft rate higher

than 3.5826 per thousand vehicles, the