33298 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Notices

Dated: June 15, 2001.

Rose A. McMurray,

Associate Administrator for Traffic Safety

Programs.

[FR Doc. 01–15603 Filed 6–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 01–9362; Notice 2]

Saleen, Inc.; Grant of Application for

Temporary Exemption From Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208

This notice grants the application by

Saleen, Inc., of Irvine, California, for a

temporary exemption of its S7 passenger

car from the automatic restraint

requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant

Crash Protection. The basis of the

request was that compliance would

cause substantial economic hardship to

a manufacturer that has tried to comply

with the standard in good faith. 49

U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i).

We published notice of receipt of the

application on April 23, 2001, and

afforded an opportunity for comment

(66 FR 20520).

Saleen referred to itself as a ‘‘small

volume US manufacturer which

currently produces the Saleen S281 and

the XP8 Explorer.’’ Saleen receives

completed and certified Mustangs and

Explorers from Ford Motor Company

drop shipped at the direction of the

dealers who own them. Saleen adds a

supercharger, makes ‘‘other minor

engine modifications, front and rear

bumper outer skin designs, the seat

trim, [upgrades] the tires’ wheels/

suspension/brakes, and [adds] appliques

to the exterior and interior of the

vehicle. Saleen does not make any

structural changes to the Mustang or the

Explorer.’’ Under NHTSA regulations,

Saleen is considered an alterer, rather

than a manufacturer, since it modifies

previously certified vehicles. (See 49

CFR 567.7). Although it may have

altered several hundred Ford vehicles in

the year preceding the filing of its

application, we have not previously

regarded Saleen as a ‘‘manufacturer.’’

Saleen now intends to manufacture a

motor vehicle of its own design. As the

vehicle has not entered production,

Saleen has manufactured no motor

vehicles in the year preceding the filing

of its application. The vehicle is called

the S7 and is a ‘‘two seat, coupe,

sportscar.’’ The S7 has been shown in

prototype form at automobile shows

around the country. The prototype does

not fully comply with the lighting

requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective

Devices and Associated Equipment, but

Saleen has assured us that the next

prototype and the production models to

follow will meet Standard No. 108 and

all other standards as well, with the

exception of the automatic restraint

requirements of Standard No. 208,

paragraph S4.1.5.3.

Saleen asked for a three-year

exemption for the S7 and anticipates

that it will sell a total of 112 of them by

the end of 2003. According to the

petition, preliminary compliancerelated development of the S7 was

started in July 2000. By the time it filed

its petition in December 2000, the

company had ‘‘spent an estimated total

of 180 man-hours and $18,000 relating

to the installation of a driver and

passenger side airbag system on the S7.’’

The monies spent thus far ‘‘have been

in the areas of exterior and interior

design necessary for the installation of

airbags.’’ It has been advised that the

airbag development process would cost

approximately $1,000,000 not including

the cost of test prototype vehicles and

airbags, and tooling. This process

cannot be completed by the time the

company expects to launch the S7, in

the summer of 2001. Indeed, the

company estimated that it will take up

to 20 months to fully develop a system

and that the total costs will approach

$3,000,000.

Saleen had cumulative net losses

before taxes for the past three fiscal

years of $9,716,334. It states that it

‘‘simply cannot afford to develop the

airbags in either the first (2001) or

second (2002) year’’ because of these

losses. The company ‘‘has exhausted all

of its borrowing capacity and must sell

and ship S7 vehicles (as well as its other

products) to generate cash flow

sufficient to defray airbag development

costs as well as other S7 development

costs.’’ Although ‘‘funding for the S7

was secured through a private investor,’’

Saleen states that ‘‘all further funding

for airbags must come from our ordinary

income.’’ Even with an exemption,

Saleen projected net losses continuing

through the end of the period though

earnings before interest, taxes,

depreciation and amortization would be

positive. It plans to spread out air bag

development costs over the next three

years to achieve compliance by the end

of the exemption period. If the petition

is denied, the company believes that it

would lose credibility with dealers and

negatively impact the demand for

altered Saleen vehicles.

The company argued that a temporary

exemption is in the public interest

because the S7 ‘‘is a unique super car

designed and produced in the U.S.

utilizing many U.S. sourced

components.’’ An exemption would also

allow it to maintain its payroll of 122

full time employees and to continue its

purchase of U.S. sourced components

for the Mustangs and Explorers that it

modifies. Its business with U.S.

suppliers ‘‘indirectly provides

employment for several hundred other

Americans.’’ An exemption is consistent

with vehicle safety objectives because

the S7 otherwise will conform to all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards.

We received no comments from the

public on Saleen’s application.

Saleen is typical of small volume

manufacturers who have received

temporary exemptions in the past on

hardship grounds. It is commencing to

manufacture high-priced automobiles

for a specialty market with limited

resources to do so, and its income

statements show net losses for previous

fiscal years. It is manifest that to require

compliance with Standard No. 208 now

would cause Saleen substantial

economic hardship through preventing

it from the opportunity to enter a new

market, although a denial of its

application would not appear to NHTSA

to have a material effect on its current

operations as an alterer.

Saleen is typical, too, in extending its

compliance development efforts over a

period of time in recognition of its

limited finances. NHTSA notes that the

company estimates that it will take up

to 20 months to fully develop an

automatic restraint system. This would

appear to justify a 24-month exemption

rather than one of 36 months.

The agency has traditionally found

that the public interest is served in

affording continued employment to a

small volume manufacturer’s work force

and to those of its U.S.-sourced

component suppliers, as well as

affording the public a wider variety of

motor vehicles. An exemption in this

case would appear to afford an

opportunity for new jobs and part

suppliers connected with manufacturing

the S7. In the usual case, the vehicle

that is the subject of the application

complies with all other applicable

Federal motor vehicle safety standards

and will be made in quantities that will

have a negligible impact on the overall

level of safety on the roads of this

country.

All these factors are present in this

case. In consideration of the foregoing,

it is hereby found that compliance with

the automatic restraint requirements of

Standard No. 208 would cause

substantial economic hardship to a

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Notices 33299

1Redacted versions of two Trackage Rights

Agreements between CSXT and LIRC (agreements)

were filed with the verified notice of exemption.

Unredacted versions of the agreements, as required

by 49 CFR 1180.6(a)(7)(ii), were concurrently filed

under seal along with a motion for a protective

order. That motion has been granted in a separate

decision and a protective order in this proceeding

is being served on June 15, 2001.

manufacturer that has tried in good faith

to comply with the standard. It is

further found that the granting of an

exemption would be in the public

interest and consistent with the

objectives of traffic safety.

Accordingly, Saleen, Inc., is hereby

granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption

No. 2001–6 from S4.1.5.3 of 49 CFR

571.208, Standard No. 208, Occupant

Crash Protection, for the Saleen S7,

expiring July 1, 2003.

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

49 CFR 1.50)

Issued on June 18, 2001.

L. Robert Shelton,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 01–15606 Filed 6–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33744]

CSX Transportation, Inc.—Trackage

Rights Exemption—Louisville &

Indiana Railroad Company

Louisville & Indiana Railroad

Company (LIRC) has agreed to grant to

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT)

trackage rights over LIRC’s line between

milepost 110.56, at Louisville, KY, and

milepost 4.0, at Indianapolis, IN, a

distance of approximately 106.5 miles

(line).1

The transaction is scheduled to be

consummated on June 15, 2001. The

trackage rights will allow CSXT to

operate efficiently between Louisville

and Indianapolis.

As a condition to this exemption, any

employees affected by the trackage

rights will be protected by the

conditions imposed in Norfolk and

Western Ry. Co.—Trackage Rights—BN,

354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in

Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.—Lease and

Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).

This notice is filed under 49 CFR

1180.2(d)(7). If it contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)

may be filed at any time. The filing of

a petition to revoke will not

automatically stay the transaction.

An original and 10 copies of all

pleadings, referring to STB Finance

Docket No. 33744, must be filed with

the Surface Transportation Board, Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925

K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, one copy of each

pleading must be served on Natalie S.

Rosenberg, Esq., CSX Transportation,

Inc., 500 Water Street, Jacksonville, FL

32202.

Board decisions and notices are

available on our website at

www.stb.dot.gov.

Decided: June 13, 2001.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–15433 Filed 6–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

June 15, 2001.

The Department of the Treasury has

submitted the following public

information collection requirement(s) to

OMB for review and clearance under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. Copies of the

submission(s) may be obtained by

calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance

Officer listed. Comments regarding this

information collection should be

addressed to the OMB reviewer listed

and to the Treasury Department

Clearance Officer, Department of the

Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before July 23, 2001 to be

assured of consideration.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

OMB Number: 1545–1072.

Regulation Project Number: INTL–

952–86 NPRM and Temporary.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Allocation and Apportionment

of Interest Expense and Certain Other

Expenses.

Description: The regulations provide

rules concerning the allocation and

apportionment of expenses to foreign

source income for purposes of the

foreign tax credit and other provisions.

Respondents: Individuals or

households, Business or other for-profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents/

Recordkeepers: 15,000.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent/Recordkeeper: 15 minutes.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Total Reporting./

Recordkeeping Burden: 3,750 hours.

OMB Number: 1545–1265.

Regulation Project Number: IA–120–

86 Final.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Capitalization of Interest.

Description: The regulations require

taxpayers to maintain contemporaneous

written records of estimates, to file a

ruling request to segregate activities in

applying the interest capitalization

rules, and to request the consent of the

Commissioner to change their methods

of accounting for the capitalization of

interest.

Respondents: Individuals or

households, Business or other for-profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

50.

Estimated Number of Recordkeepers:

500,000.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent: 2 hours.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Recordkeeper: 14 minutes.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Total Reporting/

Recordkeeping Burden: 116,767 hours.

Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear,

Internal Revenue Service, Room 5244,

1111 Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20224.

OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt

(202) 395–7860, Office of Management

and Budget, Room 10202, New

Executive Office Building, Washington,

DC 20503.

Lois K. Holland,

Departmental Reports Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 01–15631 Filed 6–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of Engraving and Printing

Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended;

Systems of Records

AGENCY: Bureau of Engraving and

Printing, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of systems of records.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974,

as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Bureau

of Engraving and Printing is publishing

its inventory of Privacy Act systems of

records.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C.

552a) and the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) Circular No. A–130,

Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP)

has completed a review of its Privacy

Act systems of records notices to