Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 13 / Thursday, January 20, 2000 / Notices 3267

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this

notice announces the Maritime

Administration’s (MARAD) intentions

to request approval for three years of an

existing information collection entitled

‘‘EUSC/Parent Company.’’

DATES: Comments should be submitted

on or before March 20, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melvin Geller, Office of National

Security Plans, Maritime

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Room P1–1303, Washington, D.C.

20590, telephone number—202–366–

5910. Copies of this collection can also

be obtained from that office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title of Collection: EUSC/Parent

Company.

Type of Request: Approval of an

existing information collection.

OMB Control Number: 2133–0511.

Form Number: None.

Expiration Date of Approval: Three

years from the date of approval.

Summary of Collection of

Information: The collection of

information consists of an inventory of

foreign register vessels owned by

Americans. Specifically, the collection

consists of responses from vessel

owners verifying or correcting vessel

ownership data and characteristics

found in commercial publications. The

information obtained could be vital in a

national or international emergency,

and is essential to the logistical support

planning operations conducted by

MARAD officials.

Need and Use of the Information: The

information obtained will be used for

contingency planning for sealift

requirements primarily as a source of

ships to move essential oil and bulk

cargoes in support of the national

economy.

Description of Respondents: Foreign

register American vessel owners.

Annual Responses: 92 responses.

Annual Burden: 46 hours.

Comments: Comments should refer to

the docket number that appears at the

top of this document. Written comments

may be submitted to the Docket Clerk,

U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590. Comments may also be

submitted by electronic means via the

Internet at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit.

Specifically, address whether this

information collection is necessary for

proper performance of the function of

the agency and will have practical

utility, accuracy of the burden

estimates, ways to minimize this

burden, and ways to enhance quality,

utility, and clarity of the information to

be collected. All comments received

will be available for examination at the

above address between 10 a.m. and 5

p.m. et Monday through Friday, except

Federal Holidays. An electronic version

of this document is available on the

World Wide Web at http://dms.dot.gov.

Dated: January 13, 2000.

By Order of the Maritime Administrator.

Joel C. Richard,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–1287 Filed 1–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLIING CODE 4910–81–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–98–3848; Notice 3]

Beall Trailers of Washington, Inc.;

Petition for Renewal of Temporary

Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 224

Beall Trailers of Washington, Inc., of

Kent, Washington, (‘‘Beall’’), a whollyowned subsidiary of Beall Corporation,

has asked us to renew, for three years,

the temporary exemption we granted it

in July 1998 from Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 224 Rear Impact

Protection. The basis of the petition is

that compliance would cause

substantial economic hardship to a

manufacturer that has tried in good faith

to comply with the standard.

We are publishing this notice of

receipt of the petition in accordance

with our regulations on the subject. This

action does not represent that we have

made any judgment about the merits of

the petition.

On July 8, 1998, we granted Beall’s

initial exemption petition, assigning it

NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. 98–

5, expiring July 1, 1999 (63 FR 36989).

On April 20, 1999, we received Beall’s

application for renewal, which was filed

in time to stay the expiration date of the

exemption, as provided by 49 CFR

555.8(e). Following our request, Beall

provided more current financial and

production information on October 28,

1999 to supplement its new petition.

Beall manufactures and sells dump

body trailers. It (identified in the

petition as ‘‘Truckweld’’) produced a

total of 311 trailers in 1997, of which

124 were dump body types. Truckweld

trailer production in 1998 was down to

135 units but the number of dump body

types was not stated.

Standard No. 224 requires, effective

January 26, 1998, that all trailers with a

GVWR of 4536 Kg or more, including

dump body types, be fitted with a rear

impact guard that conforms to Standard

No. 223 Rear impact guards. Beall

argued earlier that ‘‘alterations may

have to be made to the trailer chassis or

even raising the dump box to provide

space for the retractable guard,’’

indicating that a guard that retracts

when the dump body is in operation is

the solution it is seeking in order to

comply. During the time that its

exemption has been in effect, Beall

‘‘has, in good faith, made attempts to

design a compliant device.’’ It states that

it has developed ‘‘a number of potential

designs’’ including an articulating

design, but ‘‘these devices * * * do not

meet FMVSS 224, have interferences

with paving equipment, or have severe

maintenance issues.’’ The company is

still testing hinged, retractable devices

but three issues must be overcome.

First, space for a retracted device is not

readily available ‘‘due to the clearance

issues in connecting to pavers.’’ Raising

the box also raises the center of gravity

and reduces the stability of the trailers

‘‘thereby endangering others.’’ Second,

‘‘asphalt service will, over a period of

time, render such devices unusable.’’

Finally, ‘‘it would be possible to operate

a trailer with these type (sic) of devices

in the retracted position, therefore not

in compliance.’’ It will continue its

efforts to conform during the three-year

exemption period it has requested.

If a renewal of the exemption is not

granted, substantial economic hardship

will result. First, it would lose a trailer

that accounts for 40 percent of its

overall production. In addition, ‘‘some

percentage of the remaining 60% would

be lost since our customers typically

purchase matching truck mounted

dump bodies which may also be lost.’’

It also believes that 31 of its 63

employees would have to be laid off if

its application is denied. It argues that

maintenance of full employment would

be in the public interest . Beall’s net

income was $39,317 in fiscal year 1995,

$72,213 in 1996, $697,040 before

income taxes in 1997, and $326,255 in

1998.

We welcome your written comments

on Beall’s petition. Please send three

copies, headed with the docket and

notice number shown at the top of this

document, and addressed to: Docket

Management, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, Room PL–401,

400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20590. We consider all comments

received before the close of business on

the comment closing date below . The

comments will be available for your

examination in the docket at the above

address both before and after that date,

between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.

To the extent possible, we will also

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