Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 91 /Tuesday, May 12, 1998 / Notices 26247

the link between Kissimmee and

Maitland. This arterial will provide an

alternative to I–4 traffic through

Orlando, and will also alleviate traffic

congestion on the existing local

connecting streets of Lee Road, Carder

Road, US 441, All American Boulevard,

and Edgewater Drive that now must

carry continuing northbound traffic to

Forest City Road.

Alternatives under consideration are:

(1) ‘‘No Build’’, or no improvements

within the corridor beyond what is now

committed; (2) Improvement of existing

roadway facilities including

transportation management system

(TSM) within the corridor and; (3) New

alignment: six-laning and extension of

John Young Parkway from SR 50 to

Forest City Road.

In the EIS, the FHWA and local

agencies will evaluate all environmental

impacts of the project, including socioeconomic impact, cultural impact, and

public recreational facility impact to the

roadway corridor and surrounding

communities, natural impacts to the

wildlife and vegetation, and physical

impacts to land use aesthetics, noise

levels, and air and water quality of the

area. Impacts to floodplain and

Outstanding Florida Waters, wetlands

and endangered or threatened species,

wildlife corridors and critical habitat

will be evaluated. The presence of

contaminated properties or potential

contamination will be evaluated.

Impacts will be evaluated for both short

term and long term duration and

mitigation of any impacts will be

studied. Storm water volume and

quality management will be a major

design consideration. Meeting the local

transportation needs, both personal and

mass transit, and public service needs of

the area communities are goals of the

study.

Letters with description of the

proposed project soliciting comments

will be sent to appropriate Federal,

State, and local agencies, as well as

private groups and citizens that have

expressed interest in this proposal.

Public notice will be issued for a series

of public meetings and hearings to be

held in Orange County and the City of

Orlando between April, 1998 and

March, 1999, where the Draft EIS will be

available to the agencies and public for

review and discussion. A formal

scoping meeting is planned at the

project site during 1998. Comments on

the proposal from all interested parties

are solicited and should be directed to

the FHWA contact person listed above.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Number 20.205, Highway Research,

Planning and Construction. The regulations

implementing Executive Order 12372

regarding intergovernmental consultation on

Federal programs and activities apply to this

program)

J.R. Skinner,

Division Administrator, Tallahasse.

[FR Doc. 98–12561 Filed 5–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–98–3812; Notice 1]

Bug Motors, Inc.; Receipt of

Application for Temporary Exemption

From Two Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standards

Bug Motors, Inc., which has its

principal place of operations in Long

Beach, California, (‘‘Bug’’) has applied

for a temporary exemption of three years

from two Federal motor vehicle safety

standards as described below. The basis

of the application is that compliance

would cause substantial economic

hardship to a manufacturer that has

tried in good faith to comply with each

of the standards.

This notice of receipt of an

application is published in accordance

with the requirements of 49 U.S.C.

30113(b)(2) and does not represent any

judgment of the agency on the merits of

the application.

In June 1997, California granted a

year’s license as a ‘‘Vehicle

Remanufacturer’’ to Looking Glass

Replicas of Long Beach, of which

Kenneth Scheiler was the sole

proprietor. Mr. Scheiler changed this

business entity into ‘‘Bug Motors, Inc.’’

in December 1997, a corporation of

which he is the sole shareholder and

president. Therefore, Bug has not

manufactured any vehicles in the 12-

month period preceding the filing of its

Application, nor can it file financial

information for the three fiscal years

called for by the regulation. Upon

incorporation, its assets were stated as

$224,600. Mr. Scheiler has been engaged

in refurbishing used Volkswagen

Beetles, and would now like to produce

‘‘new and improved replicas’’ of the car.

Bug intends to buy certain vehicle

components from Volkswagen-Mexico,

import them into the United States, and

assemble Volkswagen ‘‘Beetles’’ to be

sold under the name ‘‘the Bug.’’

Specifically, Bug will buy and import

new chasses, axles, and bodies

including interior components. The Bug

will be equipped with a refurbished

1973 engine and ‘‘a rebuilt speedometer

(converted from Kilometers to Miles).

Under California law, the Bug will be

titled as a ‘‘1998 Remanufactured

Vehicle,’’ but is considered ‘‘used’’

rather than ‘‘new.’’ NHTSA reviewed

the intended modus operandi with the

applicant’s attorney and concurred with

Bug’s decision that, under these facts,

the Bug should be treated under Federal

law as a newly manufactured passenger

car which is required to comply with all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards.

In addition to the conventional Beetle

two-door sedan, Bug will offer two

convertible models. One is a sedan

modified to have an electric-powered

fabric roof that opens along the roof

rails. The other is a fully convertible car

with a manually-operated top, the

familiar Beetle convertible. Bug’s

Application includes a list of the

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards, indicating the compliance

status of the Bug with respect to each.

Representation is made that the Bug

complies (e.g., Standard No. 104) or

complies with a minor exception which

will be modified in production (e.g.,

addition of a brake warning light,

Standard No. 105). However, the Bug

will not comply with Standard No. 208

and Standard No. 214.

Specifically, under Standard No. 208,

the Bug will be equipped with a threepoint restraint system, but ‘‘the warning

system, including audio and visual

aids’’ will only ‘‘be available within one

year after production commences, and

most likely within 6 months.’’ Bug says

that it ‘‘has been working with vendors

to adapt a Dual Inflatable Restraint

System to the Bug,’’ but it anticipates

that an entire three-year period will be

required for the system to be developed

and implemented.

With respect to Standard No. 214, Bug

states that it ‘‘has been attempting to

identify vendors and parts for the

installation of door beams for the Bug’’

and that it ‘‘is uncertain as to what, if

any, engineering will have to be

performed to document compliance.’’ It

hopes to achieve compliance within a

three-year period.

In support of its hardship argument,

Bug informs NHTSA that it would be

put out of business if the Application is

not granted, as its subsidiary business of

refurbishing Beetles is not sufficient to

carry it alone. In addition, its national

distributor would lose its entire

investment in start-up costs, estimated

to exceed $100,000.

An exemption would be in the public

interest as it will allow Bug to increase

its workforce from seven to 35 people

within a year, drawn from ‘‘a significant

number of minorities, including

Hispanics, Asians, and AfricanAmericans.’’ The availability of the Bug
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