[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 5, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24214-24215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-11302]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-99-5200; Notice 2]
Capacity of Texas, Inc.; Grant of Application for Temporary
Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105
For the reasons expressed in this notice, we are granting the
application by Capacity of Texas, Inc., of Longview, Texas
(``Capacity''), for a temporary exemption from the anti-lock
requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 Hydraulic and
Electric Brake Systems that became effective March 1, 1999. Capacity
applied for an exemption 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 published a notice of receipt of the application on March 10,
1999, and afforded an opportunity for comment (64 FR 11979). We
received one comment on the application, from the National Truck
Equipment Association (NTEA), which supported it.
The discussion that follows recapitulates Capacity's arguments and
is based on information contained in the company's application.
Why Capacity Needs a Temporary Exemption
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 if it is manufactured on
and after March 1, 1999. 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 is assuming the responsibilities of the final-stage
manufacturer (World Trans). As such, Capacity will certify that the
completed buses comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards, and provide notification and remedy if required.
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 an 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.
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,
[[Page 24215]]
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.''
Capacity believes that rushing an anti-lock system into production
might present a risk to safety.
Our Findings and Decision
At the moment, Capacity's net income is larger than many low-volume
manufacturers who apply for temporary exemptions. However, in the
absence of an exemption, Capacity will not be able to generate revenues
by providing ``100 or less yearly'' bus chassis for its customer, World
Trans until such time as it is able to produce a conforming bus. This
raises the possibility that World Trans would look elsewhere for bus
chassis and that Capacity would permanently lose World Trans as a
customer. In the absence of an exemption, it is logical to assume that
Capacity would attempt to reduce its expenses by a reduction in its
work force. As discussed earlier, the brake component suppliers
contacted by Capacity have been unable to help the company comply by
March 1, 1999, the effective date of the anti-lock requirement. Lucas/
Varity does not appear interested in producing an anti-lock controller
in small quantities. Eaton-Bosch does not anticipate having a suitable
controller until 2001. ITT Automotive Teves does not appear able to
provide a reliable controller before late in 2000. Rockwell/Meritor-
Wabco System may have a suitable controller, but if so, ``a year's
testing will be required to adapt it to [the Capacity] bus chassis.''
It appears that two of the three suppliers may have a usable anti-lock
controller that could be installed were a two-year exemption provided.
A two-year exemption would also be consistent with our views that
exemptions must be sparingly given to buses because they are motor
vehicles which may carry hundreds of passengers daily. Some of
Capacity's buses, it appears, will operate in environments where high
speed stops are not commonly experienced. Although we do not know how
many passengers these buses are designed to carry, they appear to be
smaller than big-city transit buses even though their GVWR is greater
than 10,000 pounds.
It is in the public interest to facilitate the availability of
relatively inexpensive buses whose size and price are appropriate for
the small city and rural district transit markets in which they are
sold and operated. In its comment in support of the application, NTEA
stated that denial of the exemption request would also hurt the
communities that need ``these specialized vehicles.'' NTEA also
commented that ``the features of this bus also allow it to serve the
handicapped community.''
For these reasons, we find that compliance with S5.5 of Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 would cause substantial economic
hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with
the standard. We further find that a temporary exemption would be
consistent with the public interest and the objectives of motor vehicle
safety.
Accordingly, Capacity of Texas, Inc., is hereby granted NHTSA
Temporary Exemption No. 99-5 from S5.5 of 49 CFR 571.105 Standard No.
105 Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems, expiring April 1, 2001.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.
Issued on: April 30, 1999.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-11302 Filed 5-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P