[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