3268 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 13 / Thursday, January 20, 2000 / Notices

consider comments filed after the

closing date. We shall publish notice of

our final action on the petition in the

Federal Register under the authority of

49 U.S.C. 30113, and the delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.4.

Comment closing date: February 22,

2000.

Issued on: January 14, 2000.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Acting Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 00–1356 Filed 1–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLIING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2000–6787; Notice 1]

Currie Technologies, Inc., Receipt of

Application for Temporary Exemption

From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards Nos. 108 and 123

Currie Technologies, Inc. (‘‘Currie’’),

of Van Nuys, California, a Nevada

Corporation, has applied for a

temporary exemption of two years from

certain requirements of Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps,

Reflective Devices and Associated

Equipment, and of Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123

Motorcycle Controls and Displays. The

basis of the request is that ‘‘compliance

would cause substantial economic

hardship to a manufacturer that has

tried to comply with the standard in

good faith,’’ 49 U.S.C. Sec.

30113(b)(3)(B)(i).

We are publishing this notice of

receipt of an application in accordance

with the requirements of 49 U.S.C.

30113(b)(2), and does not represent any

judgment on the merits of the

application.

Why Currie Says That it Needs a

Temporary Exemption

Since March 1, 1997, Currie has

produced ‘‘fewer than 1,000’’ electric

bicycles with a ‘‘power assist.’’ Its

‘‘power assisted’’ electric bicycles

incorporate a ‘‘pedal torque enable

system’’ which require that the rider

pedal the bicycle in order to activate the

motor. Because Currie’s ‘‘power assist’’

will not operate in the absence of

muscular power, a bicycle equipped

with the ‘‘power assist’’ is not a motor

vehicle subject to our regulations. Currie

now intends to manufacture a bicycle

propelled by an electric motor of less

than 1⁄2 hp which will operate in the

absence of muscular power. A

motorized bicycle that can operate in

the absence of muscular power is a

‘‘motor vehicle.’’ As the manufacturer of

a ‘‘motor vehicle,’’ Currie must comply

with all applicable Federal motor

vehicle safety regulations. For purposes

of compliance with the Federal motor

vehicle safety standards, any twowheeled motor vehicle is a

‘‘motorcycle.’’ However, some

provisions of the Federal motor vehicle

motorcycle safety standards contain

lesser performance requirements for

‘‘motor driven cycles.’’ These are

motorcycles with engines producing 5

hp or less, such as the Currie vehicle.

Currie believes that compliance with

portions of the Federal motorcycle

safety standards on lighting and controls

will cause it substantial economic

hardship. It requests that it be exempted

from providing the headlamps,

taillamps, stop lamps, and license plate

lamps required by Standard No. 108,

and handlebar-located front and rear

brake controls.

Why Currie Says That Compliance

Would Cause Substantial Economic

Hardship and it Has Tried in Good

Faith To Comply With the Standards

Currie’s resources are limited. From

its inception on February 28, 1997

through December 31, 1998, the

company had cumulative net losses of

$703,054. The costs of tooling for the

lamps needed to comply with Standard

No. 108 are estimated to be $120,000.

This, in turn, would require an increase

in the retail cost of each vehicle that

could be as much as $300. The vehicle

currently retails for $899, and if the

company raises the price to $1,199,

‘‘this will result in pricing the product

well above the $1,000 price point

threshold and effectively nullify all

future sales.’’ Further, ‘‘with the money

invested in the company to date and the

requirement for at least minimum

operating capital, our company will go

out of business unless minimum capital

to cover operating expenses is generated

through sales.’’ Beginning in July 1998,

it researched and tested off-the-shelf

motorcycle and moped headlamps,

taillamps and stop lamps at Jute

Manufacturing Company in Taiwan.

Currie found that these lamps added

over 5 pounds weight, reducing the total

range per charge (which reduces the

appeal of the product as range per

charge decreases). The batteries of the

Currie electric bicycle carry only 250

watt-hours; the lamps tested are

inefficient and will draw more energy

from the batteries. To provide heavier,

more efficient batteries will increase the

price and reduce the range per charge.

While the exemption is in effect, Currie

will explore other options such as

designing vehicle-specific lighting

equipment. It estimates that it can

achieve compliance by December 2000.

During the exemption period, its

vehicles will be equipped with the

following reflectors: one white in front,

one red in rear, one white on each rim,

and two yellow on each pedal.

The company’s arguments about

compliance with Standard No. 123 are

based upon its safety views. A bicycle

is configured to have the lever

controlling the rear brake on the right

handlebar. To reverse this position

creates the possibility of confusion in

riders who must apply brakes quickly.

Currie gives as an example:

When coasting too fast down hills, the

natural instinct is to activate the right-hand

lever (rear brake) first. This prevents the rear

end of the bicycle from cartwheeling over the

front. With the brake reversal, the front brake

is activated first, causing dangerous

catapulting. This is a common occurrence

with novice bicyclists. The moped brake

reversal accentuates this danger, and, in fact,

a number of accidents have occurred for this

reason.

The company does comply with the

requirements of the Consumer Product

Safety Commission (CPSC) for bicycles

that the rear brake shall be activated by

a control located on the right handlebar

and the front brake activated by a

control on the left handlebar.

Why Currie Says that an Exemption is

Consistent With the Public Interest and

the Objectives of Motor Vehicle Safety

Currie submits that the electric

bicycle ‘‘is an environmentally friendly,

zero-emission vehicle, and that massmarketed electric bicycles ‘‘will help to

ease the transition from gas powered

vehicles into the nascent electric vehicle

market.’’

Because the maximum speed of the

electric bicycle is 16 mph when driven

by the motor alone, and because a

standard bicycle without motor ‘‘can

easily travel at speeds greater than 16

mph, solely under human input,’’ Currie

argues that ‘‘this electric bicycle should

not be required to have any greater

illumination requirements than that of a

standard bicycle.’’ It believes that

aftermarket bicycle lights are adequate.

On November 10, 1999, it informed us

that ‘‘typical halogen bicycle lights are

added for night operation as for regular

bicycles.’’

In addition to the arguments regarding

its compliance with the brake control

specifications of the CPSC, as discussed

above, Currie is concerned that, as its

electric bicycle ‘‘looks, feels, and rides

like a standard bicycle,’’ a rider familiar

with bicycle braking systems might

make a mistake were the electric bicycle

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 13 / Thursday, January 20, 2000 / Notices 3269

to conform with Standard No. 123’s

opposite specifications, and believes

that an exemption from these

requirements ‘‘is more consistent * * *

than maintaining the control location

and operation * * *.’’

An Issue on Which We Request Specific

Comment

It has come to our attention that the

EV Global, an electric bicycle, is

advertised as being equipped with a tail

lamp and a headlamp, both represented

as complying with the motorcycle

requirements of Standard No. 108. We

asked Currie to explain why it was

requesting an exemption for these items

of lighting equipment. Currie replied

that the EV Global lamps ‘‘are specially

developed high intensity lamps that are

proprietary to their company.’’

Although the lamps may comply with

Standard No. 108, ‘‘the tooling and

production of these lamps is expensive

and will cause substantial economic

hardship.’’ By contrast, the Currie

product ‘‘is much lighter and much less

expensive (it uses a regular bicycle

frame), it meets a different segment of

the market and is a true electric

bicycle.’’

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the application

described above. Comments should refer

to the docket number and the notice

number, and be submitted to: Docket

Management, Room PL–401, 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.

The Docket Room is open from 10 a.m.

until 5 p.m. 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: February 22,

2000.

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at

49 CFR 1.50. and 501.8)

Issued on January 13, 2000.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Acting Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 00–1354 Filed 1–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLIING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

[Docket RSPA–98–4957; Notice 18]

Notice of New Information Collection

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Request for OMB approval and

public comments.

SUMMARY: As required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, the Research and

Special Programs Administration’s

(RSPA) published its intention to create

a new information collection in support

of the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS)

Damage Prevention Grant Program

(October 22, 1999, 64 FR 57182). No

comments were received. The purpose

of this notice is to allow the public an

additional 30 days from the date of this

notice to send in their comments.

Congress authorized the Department

of Transportation to create a Damage

Prevention Grant Program to assist the

states. The Department is requiring that

states requesting grants must provide a

written proposal to RSPA for approval.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be

received February 22, 2000 to be

assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments should identify

the docket number of this notice, RSPA–

98–4957, and be mailed directly to

Office of Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, ATTN: RSPA

Desk Officer, 726 Jackson Place, NW,

Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marvin Fell, Office of Pipeline Safety,

Research and Special Programs

Administration, Department of

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366–6205

or by electronic mail at

marvin.fell.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Damage Prevention Grant

Program

Type of Request: New

Abstract: Third party damage is a

leading cause of pipeline accidents.

Congress has allocated funds to provide

states grants to develop one-call

notification programs which will reduce

the amount of third party damage. States

will be required to submit proposals for

these grants that will be evaluated by

RSPA.

Estimate of Burden: The average

burden hours per response is 40 hours.

Respondents: States.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 30

the first year and 40 the second year.

Estimated Number of Responses per

Respondent: 1 per year.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 1200–1600 hours. Copies

of this information collection can be

reviewed at the Dockets Facility, Plaza

401, U.S. Department of Transportation,

400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20590 from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M.,

Monday through Friday except Federal

holidays. They also can be viewed over

the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov

Comments are invited on: (a) The

need for the proposed collection of

information for the proper performance

of the functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used; (c)

Ways to enhance the quality, utility and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on those who are to respond, including

the use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques.

Issued in Washington, DC on January 13,

2000.

Richard B. Felder,

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

[FR Doc. 00–1353 Filed 1–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLIING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Departmental Offices; International

Financial Institution Advisory

Commission; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: Under section 603 of the

Foreign Operations, Export Financing

and Related Programs Appropriations

Act, 1999, the International Financial

Institution Advisory Commission (the

‘‘Commission’’) shall advise the report

to the Congress on the future role and

responsibilities of the international

financial institutions (defined as the

International Monetary Fund,

International Bank for Reconstruction

and Development, European Bank for

Reconstruction and Development,

International Development Association,

International Finance Corporation,

Multilateral Investment Guarantee

Agency, African Development Bank,

African Development Fund, Asian

Development Bank, Inter-American

Development Bank, and Inter-American

Investment Corporation), the World

Trade Organization, and the Bank for

International Settlements.