[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 10, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11979-11980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-5971]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-99-5200; Notice 1]
Capacity of Texas, Inc.; Application for Temporary Exemption From
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105
We are asking your views on the application by Capacity of Texas,
Inc., of Longview, Texas (``Capacity''), for a three-year exemption
from requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 Hydraulic
and Electric Brake Systems that are effective March 1, 1999. Capacity
has applied on the basis that ``compliance would cause substantial
economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to
comply with the standard.'' 49 CFR 555.6(a).
We are publishing this notice of receipt of the application in
accordance with our regulations on temporary exemptions. This action
does not represent any judgment by us about the merits of the
application. The discussion that follows is based on information
contained in Capacity's application.
Why Capacity Needs a Temporary Exemption
On and after March 1, 1999, S5.5 of Standard No. 105 requires any
motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than
10,000 pounds, except for a vehicle that has a speed attainable in 2
miles of not more than 33 mph, to be equipped with an antilock brake
system. Capacity manufactures bus chassis that it provides to World
Trans, Inc., of Hutchinson, Kansas, for completion. However, with
respect to the buses that will be covered by the exemption, if granted,
Capacity has informed us that, pursuant to the option granted the
manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle by 49 CFR 568.7(a), it will
assume the responsibilities of the final-stage manufacturer (World
Trans), certifying that the completed buses comply with all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and provide notification and
remedy if required. In the meantime, the usual commercial relationship
between Capacity and World Trans need not be interrupted; World Trans,
as a final-stage manufacturer, may complete the bus in such a manner
that it conforms to the standards in effect on the date that the
incomplete vehicle was manufactured. Therefore, buses whose manufacture
is completed on or after March 1, 1999, are not required to comply with
antilock requirements if their chassis was manufactured before March 1,
1999 (see 49 CFR 568.6(a)).
Why Compliance Would Cause Capacity Substantial Economic Hardship
Capacity produces a limited quantity (100 or less yearly) bus
chassis for World Trans, and, as discussed more fully below, has been
unable to find a vendor who is willing to provide antilock controllers.
Therefore, if Capacity is not granted an exemption, it will have to
withdraw the chassis from production, and World Trans's bus production
will be diminished. This will cause both Capacity and World Trans to
lose income in each of the three years for which exemption has been
requested. Capacity's projected net income for its fiscal year ending
October 31, 1998, was $2,631,018. Its projected net income for the year
ending October 31, 1999, is $2,286,617 if an exemption is granted, and
$1,945,087 if it is not. Thus, net income would be reduced by $341,530
in the absence of an exemption covering production from March 1-October
31, 1999.
[[Page 11980]]
How Capacity Has Tried To Comply With the Standard in Good Faith
Capacity contacted four different brake component suppliers. Its
search for an anti-lock controller began with Lucas/Varity (formerly
Kelsey-Hayes) because of its longtime association with Ford Motor
Company and the fact that the bus chassis uses a common Dana drive axle
with many Ford light duty trucks. But the company was told that no
development could be approached until Capacity could guarantee a
purchase order in the range of 10,000 controllers.
Capacity next approached Eaton-Bosch, and found that it is
currently producing hydraulic anti-lock brake systems for vehicles up
to 12,000 lbs GVWR. Although the company is developing a system for
vehicles up to 20,000 lbs GVWR, the system won't be finalized until
2001.
The third vendor that Capacity approached was ITT Automotive-Teves,
which expects to have a system ready for installation on vehicles up to
20,000 lbs GVWR by the fourth quarter of 1999. The company told
Capacity that it will take a minimum of one winter test season to
assure that the controller can be adapted to a vehicle. Thus, Capacity
does not foresee that it can use this system and comply before the Fall
of 2000.
Finally, Capacity consulted Rockwell/Meritor-Wabco System. This
company has a controller that ``can be fine tuned on a vehicle to meet
different dynamic characteristics.'' However, ``even if this system
proves out, it appears that a year's testing will be required to adapt
it to our bus chassis.''
Why Exempting Capacity Would Be Consistent With the Public Interest and
Objectives of Motor Vehicle Safety
Capacity argued that an exemption would be in the public interest
and consistent with traffic safety objectives because
many of these vehicles end up serving small cities and rural transit
districts. These customers have limited budgets so the availability
of an economical low floor bus allows them to prove fee service in
areas where large buses are too costly to operate. The low floor
feature of this vehicle allows the finished bus to readily serve the
handicapped community.
In addition, ``these buses operate in shuttle and light transit
operations where high speed stops aren't commonly experienced.'' The
company believes that rushing an anti-lock system into production might
present a risk to safety.
How To Comment on Capacity's Application
If you would like to comment on Capacity's application, send two
copies of your comments, in writing, to: Docket Management, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street,
SW, Washington, DC 20590, in care of the docket and notice number shown
at the top of this document.
We shall consider all comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date stated below. To the extent
possible, we shall also consider comments filed after the closing date.
You may examine the docket in Room PL-401, both before and after that
date, between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.
When we have reached a decision, we shall publish it in the Federal
Register.
Comment closing date: March 30, 1999.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.50 and 501.4.
Issued on: March 4, 1999.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-5971 Filed 3-9-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
