Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Notices 33297

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Dunn, U.S. Department of

Transportation, Maritime

Administration, MAR–832 Room 7201,

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–2307.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title V of

Pub. L. 105–383 provides authority to

the Secretary of Transportation to

administratively waive the U.S.-build

requirements of the Jones Act, and other

statutes, for small commercial passenger

vessels (no more than 12 passengers).

This authority has been delegated to the

Maritime Administration per 49 CFR

§ 1.66, Delegations to the Maritime

Administrator, as amended. By this

notice, MARAD is publishing

information on a vessel for which a

request for a U.S.-build waiver has been

received, and for which MARAD

requests comments from interested

parties. Comments should refer to the

docket number of this notice and the

vessel name in order for MARAD to

properly consider the comments.

Comments should also state the

commenter’s interest in the waiver

application, and address the waiver

criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD’S

regulations at 46 CFR part 388.

Vessel Proposed for Waiver of the U.S.-

build Requirement

(1) Name of vessel and owner for

which waiver is requested. Name of

vessel: CHALLENGE BUSINESS 28.

Owner: Challenge Business, Ltd.

(2) Size, capacity and tonnage of

vessel. According to the applicant:

‘‘66.24′ long, has a breadth of 17.32′ and

a depth of 8.6′. Under our Simplified

Admeasurement Rules, (46 CFR part

69), the yacht has a gross tonnage of

46.2 and a net tonnage of 41.62.

(3) Intended use for vessel, including

geographic region of intended operation

and trade. According to the applicant:

‘‘The yacht will be used to generate

interest in sailing boats of this type

around the world in a race called the

New World Challenge 2002. Ordinary

people, from all walks of life, will

become members of the crew on 10

newer, slightly larger boats that will sail

from the United Kingdom to Boston,

MA, then New York, Buenos Aires,

Argentina, around Cape Horn to Chile,

San Diego and finally to San Francisco.

The interest, love and excitement of

sailing such boats, in difficult

conditions, over a period of

approximately 10 months, will be

supported by a number of corporate

sponsors who expect to benefit from the

team building aspect of the race and the

publicity that the race will generate. To

foster interest in the race among

potential sponsors and supporters of the

race, the yacht will be used as an

information and training platform. The

owner intends to take members of the

press, and other media, on the boat to

experience what it will be like to sail a

boat of this type in this race. Similarly,

the owner wishes to take potential and

actual sponsors and supporters of the

race on the boat for the same purpose.

None of the press, media, and

supporters will be asked to pay anything

for sailing aboard this yacht. But, we

have been advised that unless the boats

sail ‘‘voyages to nowhere’’ (i.e. three

miles from port and back again), that

some of these activities would be

violative of U.S. coastwise laws. This

yacht will be based in Boston, MA, and

may be sailed anywhere along the East

Coast of North America.’’

(4) Date and Place of construction and

(if applicable) rebuilding. Date of

construction: 1992. Place of

construction: United Kingdom.

(5) A statement on the impact this

waiver will have on other commercial

passenger vessel operators. According to

the applicant: ‘‘This activity will have

absolutely no impact on the operations

of any commercial passenger operations.

This boat had been used in another,

similar race promoted by Challenge

Business. The yacht is very similar in

size, design, sail area and handling

characteristics to the 10 boats that will

be competing in the race. Thus, it is one

of the most representative, and one of

the few ‘‘experienced’’, boats and could

be used for the intended purpose.

Further, this boat and the others

employed in the Challenge Business

race are very unique. This project brings

together ordinary people, the corporate

and non-profit communities, and fully

involves them in sailing one-designboats in a sailing experience that is not

duplicated anywhere in the world. No

existing commercial vessel operated by

anyone else can fill this role.’’

(6) A statement on the impact this

waiver will have on U.S. shipyards.

According to the applicant: ‘‘Similarly,

the proposed activity will have

absolutely no impact on U.S. shipyards.

This yacht is uniquely valuable in that

it has been raced under similar

conditions, in a similar race while

manned by individuals who had little,

if any, sailing experience, before sailing

aboard such a yacht. This yacht most

accurately represents the look, feel and

impact that the 10 yachts in the race

will have on the sailors, media, press,

sponsors and supporters. Given its

historical connection to a similar race,

no newly built U.S. yacht could preform

the proposed activity. Further, we are

not aware of any similar yachts

currently under construction in the

U.S.’’

Dated: June 18, 2001.

By order of the Maritime Administrator.

Joel C. Richard,

Secretary, Maritime Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–15640 Filed 6–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Notice of Public Meeting and Request

for Comments To Address the

Development of a Booster Seat

Education Plan; Correction

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, Department of

Transportation.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration published a

document in the Federal Register of

June 6, 2001, concerning notice of

public meeting and request for

comments to address the development

of a booster seat education plan. The

document was incorrectly published as

a Proposed Rule. It should have been

published as a Notice because it will not

lead to Rulemaking. The document also

contained incorrect dates.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tami Levitas, NHTSA, 202–366–0652.

Correction

1. In the Federal Register of June 6,

2001, in (66 FR 30366) (Docket NHTSA–

01–9785), on page 30367, in the first

column, second paragraph, correct the

‘‘Dates’’ caption to read:

DATES: * * * Written Comments:

Written requests to speak at the public

meeting and/or suggestions for items to

be included in the meeting agenda,

should be received at Docket

Management at the below address no

later than July 3, 2001. Comments to be

submitted for the public record should

be received at Docket Management at

the below address no later than July 13,

2001.

2. In the Federal Register of June 6,

2001, in (66 FR 30366) (Docket NHTSA–

01–9785), on page 30367, correct the

third column, paragraph after question

12, first sentence, of the

‘‘Supplementary Information’’ caption

to read:

If you wish to make a presentation at

the meeting, please contact Tami Levitas

at the above mailing address or

telephone number by July 3, 2001.

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