6736 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 1999 / Notices

‘‘highway’’ and its subsequent • minority and low-income completed for a pilot project, it is conversion to a toll facility. Bridges populations. expected a State will accomplish it in a and/or tunnels may be included within This scoping analysis should form the timely manner. If this does not occur, a the ‘‘highway’’ segment. basis for the more detailed candidate’s ‘‘provisional’’ acceptance environmental evaluation done in Phase may be withdrawn and offered to Phase 1—Application Requirements 2. another candidate submitted during An application from a State must The States are also welcome to Phase 1. address those items set forth in Section include with their application whatever 1216(b)(3) of TEA–21, as follows: additional information they feel would Submission Process • An identification of the facility on assist us in understanding the merits of A Phase 1 application from a State is the Interstate system proposed to be a their proposal. to be submitted to the division office. toll facility, including the age, Applications are to be received in condition, and intensity of use of the Phase 1—Selection Criteria Headquarters by March 31, 1999. facility. In selecting up to three candidate The division office is to ensure the • In the case of a facility that affects projects, the criteria set forth in Section application is complete and fully a metropolitan area, an assurance that 1216(b)(4) of TEA–21 will be used to addresses the items noted above for a the metropolitan planning organization evaluate candidates. These criteria are: Phase 1 application. Incomplete established under 23 U.S.C. 134 for the • The State is unable to reconstruct or applications received by Headquarters area has been consulted concerning the rehabilitate the proposed toll facility will be returned to the division office. placement and amount of tolls on the using existing apportionments. In addition, the division office should facility. • The facility has a sufficient review the application based on their • An analysis demonstrating that the intensity of use, age, or condition to knowledge of the proposed candidate facility could not be maintained or warrant the collection of tolls. project and the State’s program and improved to meet current or future • The State plan for implementing provide detailed comments for needs from the State’s apportionments tolls on the facility takes into account Headquarters consideration. and allocations made available by the the interests of local, regional and Phase 2 tasks will also be coordinated TEA–21, including amendments to the interstate travelers. through the division office. We will • act, and from revenues for highways The State plan for reconstruction or provide additional guidance on this from any other source without toll rehabilitation of the facility using toll later. revenues. revenues is reasonable. Questions concerning this • • A facility management plan that The State has given preference to memorandum should be directed to Jim includes: the use of a public toll agency with Overton (202–366–4653) of the Federal- • A plan for implementing the demonstrated capability to build, Aid and Design Division. imposition of tolls on the facility. operate, and maintain a toll expressway Signed by, • A schedule and finance plan for the system meeting criteria for the Interstate Thomas J. Ptak. reconstruction or rehabilitation of the system. [FR Doc. 99–3206 Filed 2–9–99; 8:45 am] In addition to the above, the facility using toll revenues. BILLING CODE 4910±22±P • A description of the public environmental scoping analysis transportation agency that will be information submitted will be used in responsible for implementation and evaluating candidate projects. A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION administration of the pilot project. candidate project perceived to have • A description of whether lesser environmental impacts may be National Highway Traffic Safety consideration will be given to given preference. Administration privatizing the maintenance and Phase 2 [Docket No. NHTSA±98±4320; Notice 2] operational aspects of the facility, while It is recognized that the NEPA retaining legal and administrative Shelby American, Inc.; Grant of impacts of a proposed pilot project control of the portion of the Interstate Application for Temporary Exemption under this program, not only involve route. From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety those associated with the proposed In addition, the application should: Standard No. 208 • Show how the plan for reconstruction/rehabilitation activities implementing tolls takes into account themselves but also those associated We are granting the application by the interests of local, regional and with converting a free Interstate facility Shelby American, Inc., of , interstate travelers. to a toll facility, such as potential Nevada (‘‘Shelby American’’), for an • Provide an environmental scoping changes in travel patterns, construction exemption until January 1, 2001, from analysis of the proposed project’s of toll collection facilities, and the automatic restraint provisions of impacts to the social, economic, and economic equity issues. The impacts Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard environmental resources located in the associated with conversion from a free No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection vicinity of the project. The analysis to toll facility as well as the impacts of (S4.1.5.3). Shelby American applied for should show what effect the proposed the physical construction activities of an exemption on the basis that construction, as well as the imposition the reconstruction/rehabilitation project compliance would cause substantial of tolls, may have on such resources as: need to be addressed before a candidate economic hardship to a manufacturer • current or planned land uses, pilot project is given final approval as that had tried in good faith to comply • historic, cultural, natural, or a pilot project. with the standard. recreational resources, Accordingly, in Phase 2 a State will We published notice of receipt of the • economic or community resources, be required to develop, for FHWA application on August 18, 1998 (63 FR • safety and livability, acceptance, appropriate NEPA 44302), affording 30 days for comment. • ambient light, noise, and air quality documentation for the pilot project. However, no comments were received. levels, Although no specific time limits are Shelby American is a Texas • sensitive receptors, and established for the NEPA process to be corporation, privately held and wholly Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 1999 / Notices 6737 owned by . Its current loss of $738,415 for 1996, and a net stated that the vehicles are not titled for business activities are conducted by income of $147,904 for 1997. highway use.’’ three wholly owned subsidiaries. The The applicant argued that ‘‘the We were also concerned about the first of these subsidiaries is Shelby production of the Shelby Series I is in operations of Shelby CSX4000, Inc., Series One, Inc., the unit that will the best interest of the public and the which produces ‘‘a component vehicle produce a new sports which is the US economy.’’ At the time of its sold without engine or transmission.’’ subject of the application for a application, the company planned to We informed the company that we temporary exemption. At the time the open a new 100,000 square foot facility would regard it as the ‘‘manufacturer’’ application was filed, these vehicles in June 1998 in Las Vegas to produce and responsible for safety standard existed in prototype form only, and the Series I. The new facility ‘‘will compliance certification if it offered an none had been produced. The second provide direct employment to engine and transmission concurrently subsidiary is Shelby CSX4000, Inc., approximately 200 employees.’’ In with the component vehicle or as part which produces ‘‘a component vehicle addition, ‘‘there are approximately 25 of the sales transaction. Shelby sold without engine or transmission,’’ to development/partner companies American responded that ‘‘these are individuals who will install the power working with Shelby American on the being sold by Shelby only as component train of their choice. In 1997, 75 of these development of the Shelby Series I, vehicles, without engine and Cobra replica assemblies were sold. The providing indirect employment for transmission, which are to be installed third subsidiary is Shelby Original those companies’ personnel * * *’’ The by the owner or at his or her direction. 427S/Cs, Inc., whose business is to car will be sold through select ** *’’ While this falls short of a assemble automobiles ‘‘from certain dealers * * * providing positive statement that the company is new old stock parts surviving from the employment to many sales and service not furnishing an engine and original 1965 Shelby Cobra production personnel at the dealership level.’’ Most transmission as part of the sales run * * * supplemented by newly major components are produced in the transaction, Shelby American’s manufactured parts utilizing original United States, including the engine statement that the vehicles are sold only tooling.’’ Two such vehicles have been (Oldsmobile), tires (Goodyear), and as component vehicles can reasonably assembled and sold as of the date of the transmission (ZF, from RBT, a US be interpreted as meaning that it is not application. company). The Series I is technically furnishing an engine and transmission The Series I is a two-passenger open advanced, combining ‘‘an aluminum for these vehicles. chassis with a carbon-fiber body, a new Finally, we had been concerned with sports car, powered by the concept amongst production vehicles, an article appearing in the September engine. The first which provides strength and durability 21, 1998, issue of Business Week on the prototypes were shown in early 1997. while minimizing weight.’’ Shelby Shelby Series 1. This article, ‘‘Road Shelby American has asked to be American believes that ‘‘the reduced Rockets for the Jaded,’’ stated that excused from compliance with the weight achieved with this vehicle will ‘‘Shelbys are selling briskly. In Vegas, automatic restraint requirements of translate into a new standard for [the author] met one high roller who has Standard No. 208, relating that it is improved emissions and fuel efficiency. bought five of them for resale.’’ Shelby working ‘‘with many outside Aside from Standard No. 208, the car American has informed us that it has companies’’ to complete the vehicle will be certified as conforming to all only taken deposits on the Series 1, and development and certification. applicable Federal motor vehicle safety that ‘‘no Series 1 vehicles, in whole or Development of the Series I started in standards. in part, have left the possession of March 1995 (i.e., engineering tasks As noted earlier, we received no Shelby American, Inc.’’ ‘‘No have subsequent to initial design comments on the application. However, been delivered, and no cars will be development). As of the filing of its several aspects of Shelby American’s delivered’’ unless and until we grant its application, Shelby American had spent operations concerned us, and we application for exemption ‘‘and all an estimated total of 400 man hours and commented on these in letters to the appropriate engine/emissions $75,000 related to air bag development. company on July 17, 1998, and October certifications are obtained and affixed to As with development of the engine and 15, 1998. The company responded to the vehicles.’’ interior, the applicant must contract the our concerns on November 25, 1998. In order to grant Shelby American’s air bag development to an outside Shelby American’s application application, 49 U.S.C. 30113 requires us company. This cost will total $4,643,500 informed us that its subsidiary, Shelby to make two findings. The first is that over the period of time for which it has Original 427S/Cs, Inc., had assembled compliance with Standard No. 208 asked for an exemption. Additional two vehicles, termed Continuation Cars, would cause substantial economic expenditures of $546,000 will be ‘‘from certain new old stock parts hardship to a manufacturer that has necessary to cover the costs of testing, surviving from the original 1965 Shelby tried in good faith to comply with the and integration of airbag wiring. In the Cobra production run * ** standard. The second finding is that a interim, the Series I will be equipped supplemented by newly manufactured temporary exemption is consistent with with a three-point driver and passenger parts utilizing original tooling.’’ We the public interest and the objectives of restraint system. The applicant is informed the company that, in our 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301—Motor Vehicle optimistic that it can sell 500 Series I opinion, vehicles produced under these Safety. cars in the period for which it has facts must comply with all Federal In determining the existence of requested exemption. With these sales motor vehicle safety standards in effect hardship, we begin by balancing a small ‘‘Shelby American will be able to at the time of their assembly, and that manufacturer’s recent annual net support the estimated $216,229 monthly its application had not covered these income history against its estimates of development expenditure necessary for vehicles. The company replied that its costs to comply, and continue by implementation of the airbag at the end Continuation Cars ‘‘will only be sold as considering intangibles such as loss of of the two year period.’’ race cars, not as licensed vehicles for market if an exemption is not granted. Shelby American had no material use on the public roads’’ and that ‘‘to Shelby had no material operations in operations in 1995. Its unaudited the extent Shelby issues any statements 1995. Its net loss in 1996 was only consolidated balance sheet showed a net of origin for these vehicles, it will be slightly offset by its net income in 1997, 6738 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 1999 / Notices for a cumulative loss of $590,511. On very limited number of exempted documentation in the railroad’s the other hand, development and testing vehicles on the roads, only 500 by July possession will be made available costs are estimated to exceed 1, 2001. promptly to those requesting it. The $5,000,000. We believe it manifest that Therefore, in consideration of the interest of railroad employees will be to require immediate compliance with foregoing, and as required by 49 U.S.C. protected by the conditions set forth in automatic protection specifications 30113, I find that compliance with Oregon Short Line R. Co. would cause Shelby ‘‘substantial Standard No. 208 would cause Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 economic hardship’’ within the meaning substantial economic hardship to a (1979). of the statute. We note that an manufacturer that has tried to comply By issuance of this notice, the Board exemption will allow sales generating to with the standard in good faith, and that is instituting an exemption proceeding ‘‘support the estimated $216,229 an exemption is consistent with the pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final monthly development expenditure’’ to public interest and 49 U.S.C. Chapter decision will be issued by May 11, 1999. comply with Standard No. 208 at the 301—Motor Vehicle Safety. end of the exemption period. Accordingly, Shelby American, Inc., is Any offer of financial assistance In finding whether an applicant has hereby granted NHTSA Temporary (OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will tried to comply with a standard in good Exemption No. 99–1, expiring January 1, be due no later than 10 days after faith, we ask an applicant to provide a 2001, from S4.1.5.3 Passenger cars service of a decision granting the chronological outline of its efforts. In manufactured on or after September 1, petition for exemption. Each OFA must this case, development is said to have 1997, of 49 CFR 571.208 Standard No. be accompanied by a $1,000 filing fee. begun in March 1995, and the company 208, Occupant Crash Protection. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25). has learned that it must use outside All interested persons should be assistance to comply. We are informed Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. aware that, following abandonment of that the company, as of the date of its rail service and salvage of the line, the Issued: February 5, 1999. application, had ‘‘spent an estimated line may be suitable for other public total of 400 man hours and $75,000 Ricardo Martinez, use, including interim trail use. Any related to development.’’ Given its Administrator. request for a public use condition under limited resources, we believe that the [FR Doc. 99–3293 Filed 2–9–99; 8:45 am] 49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail company’s effort shows the requisite BILLING CODE 4910±59±P banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be good faith attempt to meet Standard No. due no later than March 2, 1999. Each 208. trail use request must be accompanied Shelby supports its argument that an DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION by a $150 filing fee. See 49 CFR exemption is consistent with the public 1002.2(f)(27). interest by citing that its new facility Surface Transportation Board All filings in response to this notice will create jobs for 200 people, that 25 [STB Docket No. AB±68 (Sub-No. 3X)] must refer to STB Docket No. AB–68 other companies are helping it to (Sub-No. 3X) and must be sent to: (1) produce the Series 1, that the Series 1 Lake Superior & Ishpeming Railroad Surface Transportation Board, Office of will be sold through Oldsmobile CompanyÐAbandonment ExemptionÐ the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K dealers, and that the vehicle employs in County, MI new materials techniques that ‘‘will Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423– translate into a new standard for On January 21, 1999, Lake Superior & 0001, and (2) Phillip B. Maxwell, improved emissions and fuel Ishpeming Railroad Company (LS&I) Hackett & Maxwell, P.C., 888 W. Big efficiency.’’ We have frequently found filed with the Surface Transportation Beaver, Suite 1470, Troy, MI 48084. in the past that the public interest is Board (Board) a petition under 49 U.S.C. Replies to the LS&I petition are due on served by providing employment 10502 for exemption from the or before March 2, 1999. opportunities and technological provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to Persons seeking further information advancement, cogent arguments here as abandon a 3.54-mile line of railroad concerning abandonment procedures well. Finally, in support of an argument located wholly within the city and may contact the Board’s Office of Public that an exemption is consistent with county of Marquette, MI, extending from Services at (202) 565–1592 or refer to objectives of motor vehicle safety, milepost 50.23, near the Highway 41/ the full abandonment or discontinuance Shelby American confirms that the Hampton Street intersection, to milepost regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Series 1 will be certified as conforming 53.77, near the Hawley Street crossing. Questions concerning environmental to all Federal motor vehicle safety The line traverses United States Postal issues may be directed to the Board’s standards other than Standard No. 208, Service Zip Code 49855 and includes no Section of Environmental Analysis and will be fitted with a three-point stations. (SEA) at (202) 565–1545. [TDD for the driver and passenger restraint system. The line does not contain federally hearing impaired is available at (202) We note, also, that there will be only a granted rights-of-way. Any 565–1695.]