2866 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Notices

into applying the service brakes when

there is no need to do so.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is

hereby found that the applicant has met

its burden of persuasion that the

noncompliance herein described is

inconsequential to safety. Accordingly,

the applicant is hereby exempted from

its obligations to provide notice of the

noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.

30118, and to remedy the

noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.

30120.

49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8).

Issued on: January 23, 1996.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 96–1505 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

[Docket No. 93–37, Notice 4]

Panoz Auto Development Co.; Grant of

Application for Renewal of Temporary

Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 208

Panoz Auto Development Company of

Hoschton, Ga., applied for a renewal of

its exemption from paragraph S4.1.4 of

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection. The

basis of the application was that

compliance will cause substantial

economic hardship to a manufacturer

that has tried to comply with the

standard in good faith.

Notice of receipt of the application

was published on October 13, 1995, and

an opportunity afforded for comment

(60 FR 53454). This notice grants the

renewal.

Panoz received NHTSA Exemption

No. 93–5 from S4.1.4 of Standard No.

208, which was scheduled to expire

August 1, 1995 (58 FR 43007). However,

its application for renewal was filed on

May 26, 1995, which was more than 60

days before the scheduled expiration

date of its exemption. In accordance

with 49 CFR 555.8(e), Panoz’ filing of its

application before the 60th day stays the

expiration until the Administrator

grants or denies the application for

renewal.

Panoz’s original exemption was

granted pursuant to the representation

that its Roadster would be equipped

with a Ford-supplied driver and

passenger airbag system, and would

comply with Standard No. 208 by April

5, 1995, after estimated expenditures of

$472,000. As of April 1993, the

company had expended 750 man hours

and $15,000 on the project.

According to its application for

renewal:

Panoz has continued the process of

researching and developing the installation

of a driver and passenger side airbag system

on the Roadster since the original exemption

petition was submitted to NHTSA on April

5, 1993. To date, an estimated 1680 manhours and approximately $50,400 have been

spent on this project.

Panoz uses a 5.0L Ford Mustang GT

engine and five speed manual

transmission in its car. Because ‘‘the

1995 model year and associated

emission components were revised by

Ford’’, this caused

a delay in the implementation of the airbag

system on the Roadster due to further

research and development time requirements

and expenditure of additional monies to

evaluate the effects of these changes on the

airbag adaptation program.

In addition, the applicant learned that

Ford will be replacing the 5.0L engine

and emission control system on the

1996 Mustang and other passenger cars

with a modular 4.6L engine and

associated emission components. The

1995 system does not meet 1996 OnBoard Diagnostic emission control

requirements, and Panoz will have to

use the 1996 engine and emission

control system in its cars. The majority

of the money and man hours to date

have been spent on adapting an airbag

system to the 5.0L engine car, and the

applicant is now concentrating on

adapting it to a 4.6L engine car. Panoz

listed eight types of modifications and

testing necessary for compliance that

would cost it $337,000 if compliance

were required at the end of a one-year

period. It has asked for a two-year

renewal of its exemption.

Panoz sold 13 cars in 1993 and 13

more in 1994. It did not state its sales

to date in 1995. At the time of its

original petition, its cumulative net

losses since incorporation in 1989 were

$1,265,176. It lost an additional

$249,478 in 1993 and $169,713 in 1994.

The applicant reiterated its original

arguments that an exemption would be

in the public interest and consistent

with the objectives of traffic safety.

Specifically, the Roadster is built in the

United States and uses 100 percent U.S.

components, bought from Ford and

approximately 75 other companies. It

provides full time employment for 7

persons, and ‘‘at least 200 employees

from over 80 different companies

remain involved in the Panoz project.’’

The Roadster is said to ‘‘provide the

public with a classic alternative to

current production vehicles.’’ It is the

only vehicle that incorporates ‘‘molded

aluminum body panels for the entire

car’’, a process which is being evaluated

by other manufacturers and which

‘‘results in the reduction of overall

vehicle weight, improved fuel

efficiency, and increased body

strength.’’ With the exception of S4.1.4

of Standard No. 208, the Roadster meets

all other Federal motor vehicle safety

standards including the 1997 side

impact provisions of Standard No. 214.

No comments were received on the

application.

Since its incorporation in 1989, the

applicant’s cumulative net loss exceeds

$1,600,000. Its estimated cost of

$337,000 for immediate conformance is

a convincing hardship argument. In

addition, the on-going compliance

efforts of the company with respect to

two Ford engine configurations indicate

that the company continues to make a

good faith effort to comply with

Standard No. 208. This American-made

vehicle is represented as meeting all

remaining Federal motor vehicle safety

standards, and will comply with new

side intrusion requirements in advance

of its effective date. A renewal of the

exemption is merited.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is

hereby found that to require immediate

compliance with Standard No. 208

would cause substantial economic

hardship to a manufacturer that has in

good faith attempted to meet the

standard, and that an exemption would

be in the public interest and consistent

with the objectives of traffic safety.

Accordingly, NHTSA Exemption No.

93–5 from paragraph S4.1.4 of 49 CFR

571.208 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection is

hereby extended to expire November 1,

1997.

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

49 CFR 1.50.)

Issued on January 23, 1996.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–1504 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Ex Parte No. 526]

Notice of Establishment of RailroadShipper Transportation Advisory

Council and Request for

Recommendation of Candidates for

Membership

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Request For Recommendation of

Candidates For Membership on

Railroad-Shipper Transportation

Advisory Council.