26248 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 91 /Tuesday, May 12, 1998 / Notices

also ought to create jobs and sales for

‘‘suppliers and sales people at auto

dealerships. In addition, ‘‘sale of these

vehicles [ought to] generate retail sales

taxes of approximately $1,162.50 per

unit,’’ and these revenues would be lost

with the denial of the Application. An

exemption would be consistent with the

objectives of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 as it

would make available to the public a

nostalgic vehicle that complies with all

but two Federal motor vehicle safety

standards.

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the application

described above. Comments should refer

to the docket number and the notice

number, and be submitted to: Central

Docket Management Facility, room Pl–

401, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590. It is requested

but not required that 10 copies be

submitted.

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated below will be

considered, and will be available for

examination in the docket (from 10 a.m.

to 5 p.m.) at the above address both

before and after that date. Comments

may also be viewed on the internet at

web site dms.dot.gov. To the extent

possible, comments filed after the

closing date will also be considered.

Notice of final action on the application

will be published in the Federal

Register pursuant to the authority

indicated below.

Comment closing date: June 11, 1998.

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50. and 501.8)

Issued on May 6, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98–12597 Filed 5–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 98–3396; Notice 2]

Orion Bus Industries Inc.; Grant of

Application for Temporary Exemption

From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 121

This notice grants the application by

Orion Bus Industries Inc. of Oriskany,

New York, for a five-month exemption

from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.

121 Air Brake Systems. The basis of the

application was that compliance would

cause substantial economic hardship to

a manufacturer that has tried in good

faith to comply with the standard.

Notice of receipt of the application

was published on February 3, 1998, and

an opportunity afforded for comment

(62 FR 5604).

On June 7, 1995, Western Star Truck

Holdings Ltd., Canada, purchased some

of the assets of Bus Industries of

America. Through its wholly-owned

subsidiary, Orion Bus Industries Ltd. of

Ontario, a manufacturer of city transit

buses, Western Star established Orion

Bus Industries Inc. (‘‘Orion Bus’’) as a

wholly-owned subsidiary of Orion Bus

Industries Ltd. Since 1995, ‘‘Orion Bus

has been striving to re-organize the

operation, update and replace obsolete

facilities and turn an insolvent

organization into a first class bus

manufacturing facility employing over

1,000 employees.’’ Orion Bus

manufactured 699 buses in the 12-

month period preceding the filing of its

application.

Paragraph S5.1.6.1(a) of Standard No.

121 requires each ‘‘single unit vehicle,’’

including transit buses, manufactured

on and after March 1, 1998, to be

equipped with an antilock brake system.

The company will be able to comply as

of that date with buses entering

production. However, it sought relief

from compliance for certain Transit VI

buses whose assembly will not be

completed until after March 1, 1998. As

it explained, these buses ‘‘are part of bus

contracts which have been delayed due

to the insolvency of a major part

supplier.’’ This has disrupted Orion

Bus’s schedule for over 27 weeks ‘‘while

a new vendor could be found, new

tooling produced and the new supply of

parts tested and certified to meet current

in-use Safety Standards.’’ As the buses

were not designed to be equipped with

antilock braking systems, their fixedcost contracts have no provisions for the

purchaser bearing the cost of

modifications, and Orion Bus would

have to absorb the costs. Orion Bus

increased its production schedule to

minimize the number of buses needing

an exemption. As of December 1, 1997,

however, it appeared to Orion Bus that

148 Transit VI buses would be produced

on or after March 1, 1998, and not later

than August 1, 1998.

Orion Bus had a net loss of $650,000

during its limited operations in 1995, a

net income of $1,223,000 in 1996, and

a net income of $4,696,000 in 1997.

Further costs would be incurred were

Orion Bus required to conform. At a

minimum, the cost to convert stock

axles sets and brake assemblies to

become anti-lock compliant is estimated

to be $636,740. Were Orion Bus to

complete its orders with conforming

buses, the purchasers might demand

that the buses for which they had

already taken delivery be retrofitted to

conform. This contingent liability is

estimated to be $7,000,000. Orion Bus

believes that a mixed fleet would have

a detrimental effect upon its purchasers

‘‘by forcing them to carry different

replacement parts, implementing

different maintenance procedures and

having to train maintenance personnel

and drivers on how to handle the

different vehicles.’’ Because drivers

sometimes change buses during their

shifts, in an emergency a driver may not

react appropriately as the situation

demands. Thus, it is in the public

interest to grant the application.

Orion Bus submitted data indicating

that a temporary exemption ‘‘will have

little impact on the ability of a bus to

come safely to a stop within the

stopping distances specified in Table II

of FMVSS 121.’’ These data ‘‘indicate

that the test vehicle [Orion VI Transit

bus] met all stopping distance

guidelines and stayed within a 12-foot

lane width (without wheel lock).’’

One comment was received in

response to the notice. Gillig

Corporation, a manufacturer of ‘‘heavy

duty buses, primarily for transit

operation,’’ opposed the application. It

believes that ‘‘more than enough notice

[was provided] to plan for a business

like change over of an important safety

standard improvement,’’ commenting

that the rest of the industry also had

‘‘schedule changes and increased

vehicle costs [which] we had to

incorporate into our business plans.’’

Gillig further commented that

‘‘rationalizing the impact by citing best

effort, dry road stopping is not the

intent of anti-lock systems. Anti-lock is

designed to perform in adverse

conditions and panic stops. Fleet

mixing is destined to occur.’’ Finally,

Gillig said that it was ‘‘unaware of

precedent that Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standards can be postponed due

to a manufacturer’s economic

difficulties.’’

In fact, there is a factual precedent for

the application by Orion Bus, and it also

involved compliance with Standard No.

121. Last year, the agency exempted one

truck tractor model manufactured by

Capacity of Texas, Inc., from

compliance with the antilock brake

requirements of Standard No. 121 for a

period of three months (62 FR 10110).

Capacity’s contract with the U.S. Postal

Service called for it to deliver 210

vehicles between September 1996 and

June 1997. In applying for relief, it

estimated that it could not complete the

final 60 truck tractors by March 1, 1997

without an uneconomic increase in
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