Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 91 /Tuesday, May 12, 1998 / Notices 26249

production rates which would entail the

hiring and training of new personnel,

and without diverting attention from

other orders in process. In support of its

application, it cited its customer’s desire

to have 210 identical vehicles so that all

drivers in the fleet could be trained in

the same operating procedure and

maintenance employees in the same

maintenance procedures. The Postal

Service also did not wish to have a fleet

of dissimilar vehicles requiring different

spare parts. It had not proven feasible to

complete the order before the antilock

effective date.

Orion Bus’s inability to complete its

contract on schedule was due to ‘‘bus

contracts which have been delayed due

to the insolvency of a major part

supplier.’’ This disrupted its schedule

for over 27 weeks while a new vendor

could be found. As Orion Bus has asked

for a 20-week exemption, it appears that

the applicant would otherwise have

completed the order for 210 buses

almost two months before the effective

date of the antilock provisions of

Standard No. 121. NHTSA deems the

‘‘insolvency of a major part supplier’’ as

something more than a ‘‘schedule

change,’’ with which other bus

manufacturers had to contend, as

submitted by Gillig. Orion Bus’s other

buses will be manufactured to conform

to the new requirements of the standard

effective March 1, 1998. In NHTSA’s

view, Orion Bus has demonstrated

sufficiently that it has tried in good faith

to comply with the antilock

requirements of the standard.

Orion Bus has also made a sustainable

hardship argument. Although its

cumulative net income for the three

fiscal years of its existence is somewhat

more than $5,000,000, a denial would

force it to suspend production of the

buses until it could bring them into

conformity, and would present the

possibility that its customers might

demand that the buses already delivered

to them be retrofitted to conform, a

contingent liability estimated to be

$7,000,000. Orion Bus advances the

same arguments relating to the

inadvisability of mixed fleets as were

presented by Capacity and which

NHTSA found compelling in granting

Capacity’s application.

With respect to the necessary finding

that an exemption is consistent with

considerations of motor vehicle safety,

Orion Bus has stated that its Transit VI

buses will comply with the stopping

distances required by S5.3.1 for buses

equipped with antilock. Gillig

emphasizes that this argument neglects

the purpose of antilock, ‘‘to perform in

adverse conditions and panic stops.’’

The safety of buses is of great concern

to NHTSA because these vehicles are

operated on a daily basis, carrying

hundreds of passengers. But transit

buses, unlike intercity buses, are

operated on city streets where speed is

limited and where they may not even

reach these limits in the start-and-halt

driving between stops. The likelihood of

the need for antilock is less likely to

arise in urban environments under these

operating conditions. The continued

availability of mass transit is in the

public interest as is the preservation of

the orderly flow of commerce.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is

hereby found that to require Orion Bus

to comply immediately with Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121

would cause substantial economic

hardship to a manufacturer that has

attempted in good faith to comply with

the standard, and that an exemption

would be in the public interest and

consistent with the objectives of motor

vehicle safety. Accordingly, Orion Bus

Industries, Inc., is hereby granted

NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. 98–

4, expiring September 1, 1998, for the

production of not more than 150 Orion

VI Transit buses to be exempt from

S5.1.6 of 49 CFR 571.121 Standard No.

121 Air Brake Systems.

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

authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Issued: May 6, 1998.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–12596 Filed 5–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of the Public Debt

Proposed Collection: Comment

Request

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Department of the

Treasury, as part of its continuing effort

to reduce paperwork and respondent

burden, invites the general public and

other Federal agencies to take this

opportunity to comment on proposed

and/or continuing information

collections, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub.

L. 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).

Currently the Bureau of the Public Debt

within the Department of the Treasury

is soliciting comments concerning the

Direct Deposit Sign Up Form.

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before July 14, 1998, to

be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments

to Bureau of the Public Debt, Vicki S.

Thorpe, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg,

WV 26106–1328.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or

copies of the form and instructions

should be directed to Vicki S. Thorpe,

Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 Third

Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106–1328,

(304) 480–6553.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Direct Deposit Sign Up Form.

OMB Number: 1535–0128.

Form Number: PD F 5396.

Abstract: The information is

requested to process payment data to a

financial institution.

Current Actions: None.

Type of Review: Extension.

Affected Public: Individuals.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

20,000.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 10

minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours: 3,400.

Request for Comments

Comments submitted in response to

this notice will be summarized and/or

included in the request for OMB

approval. All comments will become a

matter of public record. Comments are

invited on: (a) Whether the collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate

of the burden of the collection of

information; (c) ways to enhance the

quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected; (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on respondents, including

through the use of automated collection

techniques or other forms of information

technology; and (e) estimates of capital

or start-up costs and costs of operation,

maintenance, and purchase of services

to provide information.

Dated: May 6, 1998.

Vicki S. Thorpe,

Manager, Graphics, Printing and Records

Branch.

[FR Doc. 98–12523 Filed 5–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–39–P