10110 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 1997 / Notices

eligible vessels and that have a program

to provide for the acquisition,

construction or reconstruction of a

qualified vessel as defined in section

607(k)(2) of the Act.

Annual Responses: 130.

Annual Burden: 15.4 hours average

per year per respondent.

Comments: Send all comments

regarding this information collection to

Joel C. Richard, Department of

Transportation, Maritime

Administration, MAR–120, Room 7210,

400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington,

D.C. 20590. Send comments regarding

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.

By Order of the Maritime Administrator.

Dated: February 27, 1997.

Joel C. Richard,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–5346 Filed 3–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. 96–116, Notice 2]

Capacity of Texas, Inc.; Grant of

Application for Temporary Exemption

From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 121

Collins Industries of Hutchinson,

Kansas, on behalf of its subsidiary,

Capacity of Texas, Inc., of Longview,

Texas, applied for a temporary

exemption from paragraph S5.1.6 of

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 121 Air Brake Systems. The basis of

the application was that compliance

will cause substantial economic

hardship to a manufacturer that has

tried to comply with the standard in

good faith.

Notice of receipt of the application

was published on November 15, 1996,

and an opportunity afforded for

comment (61 FR 58604).

Paragraph S5.1.6 (which includes

S5.1.6.1–S5.1.6.3) of Standard No. 121

requires in pertinent part that each truck

tractor manufactured on and after March

1, 1997, be equipped with an antilock

brake system. Capacity of Texas

(‘‘Capacity’’) asked that one of its truck

tractor models be exempted for three

months from the provisions of S5.1.6

that will apply to it effective March 1,

1997. Capacity manufactures the Trailer

Jockey ‘‘Model TJ–5000 (Off Highway)’’

truck tractor. Terming it a ‘‘yard

tractor’’, Capacity stated that ‘‘this type

of truck is designed to operate in a

freight yard moving trailers from one

terminal entrance to another * * *

geared to limited speed [45 mph

maximum] and to provide start-up

torque for repeated stopping and

starting.’’ The tractors generally operate

at 25 mph.

Because these terminal tractors do not

appear manufactured primarily for use

on the public roads, ordinarily NHTSA

would not consider them to be ‘‘motor

vehicles’’ to which Standard No. 121

applies. However, Capacity is currently

working to fill its third contract with the

U.S. Postal Service. Unlike the other

two contracts, the present Postal Service

contract specifies that the truck tractors

be certified to comply with all Federal

motor vehicle safety standards

applicable to on-road truck tractors,

even though Capacity estimates that the

tractors will spend ‘‘approximately 5%

or less of their life in operation on the

public highways.’’ Capacity’s contract is

for 210 vehicles, to be produced

between September 1996 and June 1997,

and it estimated that the final 60 under

the order will be completed by the end

of May 1997. It thus seeks an exemption

from March 1, 1997, to June 1, 1997,

from the antilock brake requirements for

the 60 tractors.

One option that it examined is

acceleration of its production schedule

so that manufacture of all vehicles could

be completed by March 1, 1997.

However, this would require an increase

in production rates ‘‘by at least 33% two

months prior to the March 1, 1997

date.’’ The work in part would have to

be performed by newly hired and

trained employes, increasing its

overtime costs by 100%. It estimates

that total costs would be greater by far

than its net income for the fiscal year

ending October 31, 1996. In addition, it

would have to lessen its efforts to fill

other orders, with a consequent loss of

business. This means that, at the

completion of the order as of March 1,

1997, it would have to lay off 50% of

its work force until more orders were

received and an orderly production

schedule established. For these reasons,

acceleration of the production schedule

would cause it substantial economic

hardship.

A further option is to delay

production of the 60 vehicles until

compliance with Standard No. 121 is

achieved. Capacity stated that ‘‘it will be

possible to delay delivery of other

customer trucks until testing of ABS

truck systems is complete.’’ However,

according to Capacity, delay for

conformance is not acceptable to the

Postal Service because it would result in

a fleet of dissimilar vehicles requiring

different spare parts. As Capacity

further argued, identical vehicles are

desired by the Postal Service because

‘‘all drivers in the fleet can be trained

to the same operating procedures’’ and

‘‘Fleet maintenance people will be

working on these trucks and will be able

to maintain all 270 using the same

procedures.’’ Even if a delay were

acceptable to the Postal Service,

Capacity would have to absorb the

increase in costs since ‘‘the price is

fixed by contract and no upward price

relief is available.’’

In the year preceding the filing of its

petition, Capacity produced and

certified 47 vehicles for on-road use

other than those produced under the

postal contract. It also produced less

than 500 off-road vehicles. In the same

period, its parent corporation, Collins,

Inc., manufactured less than 2,000

school buses and less than 2,000

ambulance conversions. Capacity’s net

income has declined over the past three

fiscal years and, in its fiscal year ending

October 31, 1996, is far less than

$1,000,000.

Capacity argued that a temporary

exemption would be in the public

interest because the vehicles are

produced for the U.S. Postal Service. It

submitted that an exemption is also

consistent with motor vehicle safety

because ‘‘NHTSA is using a staggered

effectivity date for addition of antilock

brakes to tractors, trucks, and buses.’’ It

pointed out that ‘‘[t]here will be many

vehicles built during the 3 months of

this petition that are built under the old

standard * * *. The only reason

tractors are involved is because they got

the first effectivity date instead of

buses.’’

One comment was received. Carter

Hart of Corsicana, Texas, does not like

anti-lock brakes and commented that

‘‘[t]he company requesting the

exemption from this regulation should

not need one because it is the regulation

which is flawed.’’ NHTSA considers

this comment irrelevant to the merits of

the application.

Capacity’s application presents a

situation that differs from the usual

hardship case where a small

manufacturer’s resources may be

insufficient to achieve compliance by

the effective date of a standard or to test

for compliance, or where the small

volume manufacturer is experiencing

difficulties in obtaining conforming

parts in a timely fashion. Capacity and

its parent do not have net and

cumulative losses in the three years

before the application was filed;

however, its net income has declined
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 1997 / Notices 10111

over these years. Further, Capacity can

achieve compliance with Standard No.

121 after some delay, but presents

arguments why it may not be in the

public interest to do so.

NHTSA has great flexibility in its

interpretation of the phrase ‘‘substantial

economic hardship.’’ Ordinarily it may

consider cumulative net losses a per se

demonstration of hardship, but it

specifically invites applicants to submit

‘‘[a] discussion of any other hardships

(e.g., loss of market) that the petitioner

desires the agency to consider.’’ (49 CFR

555.7(a)(1)(D)(vi)). In this situation,

Capacity will not have a problem if it

accelerates its manufacturing schedule

to complete the order before the

effective date of the new provisions of

Standard No. 121. But this can be

achieved only at the cost of hiring and

training additional manufacturing

personnel, and requiring its work force

to work exclusively and overtime on

filling the order of the Postal Service to

the detriment of other customers whose

orders will then be delayed. These costs

cannot be recovered under Capacity’s

fixed cost contract with the Postal

Service. NHTSA also notes that the

quality of the vehicles may suffer when

vehicles are rushed to completion by a

newly-trained work force. All these are

hardship factors that NHTSA deems

relevant to its determination.

The facts also indicate that the

Administrator’s findings that a

manufacturer has made a good faith

effort to conform and that an exemption

is in the public interest and consistent

with traffic safety objectives stem from

the following scenario. Capacity can

achieve compliance no later than 3

months after the effective date of the

amendments to Standard No. 121. While

it is willing to defer completion of its

order until then, this is not acceptable

to its customer who has already taken

delivery of the initial vehicles for which

it has contracted. Delayed delivery will

not only deprive the Postal Service of

vehicles it needs, but also require it to

train drivers and maintenance personnel

in two differing procedures. NHTSA

believes that this may complicate

replacement parts inventories as well.

All in all, this would appear to increase

the costs to the Postal Service which

will contribute to the on-going

economic pressure for increases in

postal rates. The effect on safety of

providing an exemption for 60 truck

tractors which will spend only an

estimated 5% of their lives on the

public roads would appear to be de

minimis.

On the basis of the foregoing, it is

hereby found for good cause shown, that

compliance with Standard No. 121

would cause substantial economic

hardship to a manufacturer that has

tried in good faith to comply with the

standard. It is further found that a

temporary exemption is in the public

interest and consistent with the

objectives of traffic safety. Accordingly,

Capacity of Texas, Inc., is hereby

granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption

No. 96–1 from paragraph S5.1.6 of 49

CFR 571.121 Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 121 ‘‘Air Brake Systems’’

expiring June 1, 1997.

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.)

Issued on: February 28, 1997.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–5427 Filed 3–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Advisory Council on Transportation

Statistics

AGENCY: Bureau of Transportation

Statistics, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(A)(2)

of the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(Pub. L. 72–363; 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice

is hereby given of a meeting of the

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

(BTS) Advisory Council on

Transportation Statistics (ACTS) to be

held Friday, March 21, 1997, 10:00 to

4:00 p.m. The meeting will take place at

the U.S. Department of Transportation,

400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC, in

conference room 9234 of the Nassif

Building.

The Advisory Council, called for

under Section 6007 of Pub. L. 102–240,

Intermodal Surface Transportation

Efficiency Act of 1991, December 18,

1991, and chartered on June 19, 1995,

was created to advise the Director of

BTS on transportation statistics and

analyses, including whether or not the

statistics and analysis disseminated by

the Bureau are of high quality and are

based upon the best available objective

information.

The agenda for this meeting will

include a review of the last meeting,

identification of substantive issues,

review of plans and schedule, other

items of interest, discussion and

agreement of date(s) for subsequent

meetings, and comments from the floor.

Since access to the DOT building is

controlled, all persons who plan to

attend the meeting must notify Ms.

Carolee Bush, Council Liaison, on (202)

366–6946 prior to March 20. Attendance

is open to the interested public but

limited to space available. With the

approval of the Chair, members of the

public may present oral statements at

the meeting. Noncommittee members

wishing to present oral statements,

obtain information, or who plan to

access the building to attend the

meeting should also contact Ms. Bush.

Members of the public may present a

written statement to the Council at any

time.

Persons with a disability requiring

special services, such as an interpreter

for the hearing impaired, should contact

Ms. Bush (202) 366–6946 at least seven

days prior to the meeting.

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 28,

1997.

Robert A. Knisely,

Executive Director, Advisory Council on

Transportation Statistics.

[FR Doc. 97–5428 Filed 3–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–FE–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service

[Dept. Circ. 570, 1996 Rev., Supp. No. 9]

Surety Companies Acceptable on

Federal Bonds; Redland Insurance

Company

A certificate of Authority as an

acceptable surety on Federal Bonds is

hereby issued to the following company

under Sections 9304 to 9308, Title 31,

of the United States Code. Federal bondapproving officers should annotate their

reference copies of the Treasury Circular

570, 1996 Revision, on page 34304 to

reflect this addition:

Redland Insurance Company,

BUSINESS ADDRESS: 222 South 15th

Street, Suite 600 North, Omaha, NE,

68102. PHONE: (402) 344–8800.

UNDERWRITING LIMITATION b/:

$3,2240,000. SURETY LICENSES c/: AL,

AZ, AR, CA, CO, DE, DC, FL, GA, ID,

IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MN,

MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, NC,

ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN,

TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY.

INCORPORATED IN: Iowa.

Certificates of Authority expire on

June 30 each year, unless revoked prior

to that date. The Certificates are subject

to subsequent annual renewal as long as

the companies remain qualified (31

CFR, Part 223). A list of qualified

companies is published annually as of

July 1 in Treasury Department Circular

570, with details as to underwriting

limitations, areas in which licensed to

transact surety business and other

information.

The Circular may be viewed and

downloaded through the Internet (http:/