Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 1997 / Notices 10109

for the Gibson East Transportation

Corridor Study.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this

notice to advise the public that an

environmental impact statement will be

prepared for a proposed transportation

project in Bernalillo County, New

Mexico, in accordance with 23 CFR part

771.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Reuben S. Thomas, Division

Administrator, Federal Highway

Administration, 604 W. San Mateo Rd.,

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,

Telephone: (505) 820–2022.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

FHWA, in cooperation with the New

Mexico State Highway and

Transportation Department and the City

of Albuquerque Public Works

Department, will prepare an

environmental impact statement (EIS)

on a proposal to improve Gibson

Boulevard in Bernalillo County, New

Mexico. The proposed action involves

the improvement of Gibson Boulevard

beginning at Interstate 25 and extending

eastward to the Juan Tabo BoulevardInterstate 40 interchange for a total

corridor distance of about 12.9

kilometers or 8.0 miles.

The proposed action addresses the

need to relieve increased traffic

congestion in the southeast quadrant of

Albuquerque with a safe and efficient

transportation system that also serves

major employment centers including the

Albuquerque International Airport,

Kirtland Air Force Base, the Kirtland

Airforce Base/Veterans Administration

Medical Center, and the Lovelace

Medical Center.

Alternatives under consideration

include (1) the No Build Alternative; (2)

the Arterial Alternative; (3) The

Expressway Alternative; (4) the

Expressway/Arterial Alternative, and (5)

the Transit/High-Occupancy Vehicle

Alternative.

The No Build Alternative would

maintain the existing condition of

Gibson Boulevard as a six-lane principal

arterial with varying degrees of access

control from the Interstate 25/Gibson

Boulevard interchange eastward to its

existing terminus at Louisiana

Boulevard, a distance of approximately

6.4 kilometers or 4.0 miles.

The Arterial Alternative would

reconstruct major street intersections,

make some minor roadway

improvements on Gibson Boulevard

from the Interstate 25/Gibson Boulevard

interchange to Louisiana Boulevard, and

close several existing roadway medians.

It would also extend Gibson Boulevard

eastward from Louisiana Boulevard to

the Juan Tabo Boulevard/Central

Avenue intersection.

The Expressway/Arterial Alternative

would upgrade Gibson Boulevard to a

high-capacity, high speed, limited

access principal arterial with full access

limited to major intersections

approximately one-half mile apart for its

eight mile length.

The Expressway/Arterial Alternative

would upgrade Gibson Boulevard to a

high-capacity, high-speed, limitedaccess principal arterial with full access

limited to major street intersections

approximately one-half mile apart along

seven of its eight mile length. For the

remaining one-mile segment, between

San Mateo Boulevard and Louisiana

Boulevard, the Arterial Alternative

standards would apply.

The Transit/High-Occupancy Vehicle

Alternative would upgrade Gibson

Boulevard from Interstate 25 to the Juan

Tabo Boulevard/Interstate 40

interchange to a transit/high-occupancy

vehicle corridor.

Letters describing the proposed action

and soliciting comments have been sent

to appropriate Federal, State, and local

agencies, and to private organizations

and citizens who have previously

expressed an interest or are known to

have an interest in this proposal. A

series of public meetings will be held in

Albuquerque, New Mexico beginning in

February, 1997. In addition, a public

hearing will be held. Public notice will

be given of the time and place of the

meetings and hearing. The Draft EIS will

be available for public and agency

review and comment prior to the public

hearing. No formal scoping meeting is

planned at this time.

To ensure that the full range of issues

related to this proposed action are

addressed and all significant issues and

impacts identified, comments and

suggestions are invited from all

interested parties. Comments and

questions concerning this proposed

action and the EIS should be directed to

FHWA at the address provided above.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning

and Construction. The regulations

implementing Executive Order 12372

regarding intergovernmental consultation on

Federal programs and activities supply to

this program)

Issued on: February 12, 1997.

Reuben S. Thomas,

Division Administrator, Santa Fe, NM.

[FR Doc. 97–5338 Filed 3–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

Maritime Administration

[Docket No. M–030]

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’s) intentions

to request extension of approval for

three years of a currently approved

information collection.

DATES: Comments should be submitted

on or before May 5, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Lippold, Division of Capital

Assets Management, Office of Ship

Financing, Maritime Administration,

MAR–533, Room 8122, 400 Seventh

Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590.

Telephone (202) 366–5744 or FAX (202)

366–3954. Copies of this collection can

also be obtained from that office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title of Collection: Capital

Construction Fund and Exhibits.

Type of Request: Extension of

currently approved information

collection.

OMB Control Number: 2133–0027.

Form Number: No Maritime

Administration form is required; only a

format specified in 46 CFR Part 390,

‘‘Capital Construction Fund’’.

Expiration Date of Approval: April 30,

1997.

Summary of Collection of

Information: The collection consists of

application for a Capital Construction

Fund agreement under section 607 of

the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 as

amended, and annual submissions of

appropriate schedules and exhibits. The

Capital Construction Fund is a tax

deferred ship construction fund that

was created to assist owners and

operators of U.S.-flag vessels in

accumulating the large amount of

capital necessary for the modernization

and expansion of the U.S. merchant

marine. The program encourages

construction, reconstruction, or

acquisition of vessels through the

deferment of Federal income taxes on

certain deposits of money or property

placed into a CCF.

Need and Use of the Information: The

collected information is used by the

Maritime Administration to determine

an applicant’s eligibility to enter into a

CCF Agreement.

Description of Respondents: U.S.

citizens which own or lease one or more
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