[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 222 (Friday, November 15, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58604-58605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-29362]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. 96-116, Notice 1]


Capacity of Texas, Inc.; Receipt of Application for Temporary 
Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121

    Collins Industries of Hutchinson, Kansas, on behalf of its 
subsidiary, Capacity of Texas, Inc., of Longview, Texas, has applied 
for a temporary exemption from paragraph S5.1.6 of Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 Air Brake Systems. The basis of the 
application is that compliance will cause substantial economic hardship 
to a manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard in good 
faith.
    This notice of receipt of the 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.
    Paragraph S5.1.6 (which includes S5.1.6.1-S5.1.6.3) of Standard No. 
121 requires in pertinent part that each truck tractor manufactured on 
and after March 1, 1997, be equipped with an antilock brake system. 
Capacity of Texas (``Capacity'') has asked that one of its truck 
tractors be exempted for three months from the provisions of S5.1.6 
that will apply to it effective March 1, 1997. Capacity manufactures 
the Trailer Jockey ``Model TJ-5000 (Off Highway)'' truck tractor. 
Terming it a ``yard

[[Page 58605]]

tractor'', Capacity states that ``this type of truck is designed to 
operate in a freight yard moving trailers from one terminal entrance to 
another * * * geared to limited speed [45 mph maximum] and to provide 
start-up torque for repeated stopping and starting.'' The tractors 
generally operate at 25 mph.
    Because these terminal tractors do not appear manufactured 
primarily for use on the public roads, ordinarily NHTSA would not 
consider them to be ``motor vehicles'' to which Standard No. 121 
applies. However, Capacity is currently working to fill its third 
contract with the U.S. Postal Service. Unlike the other two contracts, 
the present Postal Service contract specifies that the truck tractors 
be certified to comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards 
applicable to on-road truck tractors, even though Capacity estimates 
that the tractors will spend ``approximately 5% or less of their life 
in operation on the public highways.'' Capacity's contract is for 210 
vehicles, to be produced between September 1996 and June 1997, and it 
estimates that the final 60 under the order will be completed by the 
end of May 1997. It thus seeks an exemption until June 1, 1997, from 
the antilock brake requirements for the 60 tractors.
    One option that it has examined is acceleration of its production 
schedule so that manufacture of all vehicles could be completed by 
March 1, 1997. However, this would require an increase in production 
rates ``by at least 33% two months prior to the March 1, 1997 date.'' 
The work in part would have to be performed by newly hired and trained 
employes, increasing its overtime costs by 100%. It estimates that 
total costs would be greater by far than its net income for the fiscal 
year ending October 31, 1996. In addition, it would have to lessen its 
efforts to fill other orders, with a consequent loss of business. This 
means that, at the completion of the order as of March 1, 1997, it 
would have to lay off 50% of its work force until more orders were 
received and an orderly production schedule established. For these 
reasons, acceleration of the production schedule would cause it 
substantial economic hardship.
    A further option is to delay production of the 60 vehicles until 
compliance with Standard No. 121 is achieved. Capacity states that ``it 
will be possible to delay delivery of other customer trucks until 
testing of ABS truck systems is complete.'' However, delay for 
conformance is not acceptable to the Postal Service because it would 
result in a fleet of dissimilar vehicles requiring different spare 
parts. As Capacity further argues, identical vehicles are desired by 
the Postal Service because ``all drivers in the fleet can be trained to 
the same operating procedures'' and ``Fleet maintenance people will be 
working on these trucks and will be able to maintain all 270 using the 
same procedures.'' Even if a delay were acceptable to the Postal 
Service, Capacity would have to absorb the increase in costs since 
``the price is fixed by contract and no upward price relief is 
available.''
    In the year preceding the filing of its petition, Capacity produced 
and certified 47 vehicles for on-road use other than those produced 
under the postal contract. It also produced less than 500 off-road 
vehicles. In the same period, its parent corporation, Collins, Inc., 
manufactured less than 2,000 school buses and less than 2,000 ambulance 
conversions. Capacity's net income has declined over the past three 
fiscal years and, in its fiscal year ending October 31, 1996, is far 
less than $1,000,000.
    Capacity argues that a temporary exemption would be in the public 
interest because the vehicles are produced for the U.S. Postal Service. 
It believes that an exemption is also consistent with motor vehicle 
safety because ``NHTSA is using a staggered effectivity date for 
addition of antilock brakes to tractors, trucks, and buses.'' It points 
out that ``[t]here will be many vehicles built during the 3 months of 
this petition that are built under the old standard * * *. The only 
reason tractors are involved is because they got the first effectivity 
date instead of buses.''
    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the 
application described above. Comments should refer to the docket number 
and notice number, and be submitted to: Docket Section, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, room 5109, 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 at the above address both before and 
after that date. 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: December 16, 1996.

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50, 501.8)

    Issued on November 8, 1996.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-29362 Filed 11-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P