28772 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2001 / Notices

the same sizes. The eGO vehicle is not

a motorcycle of conventional

configuration, having a ‘‘chassis design

* * * similar to that of a large scooter,

but it has handlebars, a seat and other

components that make it more similar in

appearance and operation to a bicycle.’’

The eGO is powered by a single electric

motor producing less than 2

horsepower, and is therefore a ‘‘motor

driven cycle,’’ a subcategory of

motorcycle under NHTSA definitions

and regulations. The speed of the eGO

‘‘is limited by its controller and

drivetrain configuration to less than 20

miles per hour.’’

EGO states that it has located ‘‘many

high-performance bicycle rims and

tires,’’ but that ‘‘none of the

manufacturers of these components has

certified these products as compliant

with FMVSS 119 or 120.’’ The most

similar components that EGO has

located are moped tires and rims.

However, the ‘‘performance capabilities

of these tires and rims are excessive

given the low weight, low speed, and

limited range of the eGO. Further, the

dimensions of these products are not

compatible with the eGO’s chassis

design or braking system * * *.’’

EGO deems its only alternative to

develop a specific tire and rim

combination. However, testing ‘‘would

be an extremely high cost to bear for a

manufacturer of a new and innovative

low-emission vehicle that is still at an

early stage of its product life.’’ EGO

argues that ‘‘amortizing the cost of

testing over the limited number of

vehicles sold would significantly

increase the cost of this low-emission

vehicle, reducing the market for the

product and Petitioner’s ability to

evaluate its performance and market

potential.’’

In EGO’s opinion, an exemption

would not unreasonably degrade the

safety of the vehicle ‘‘because Petitioner

has selected the eGO’s rims and tires

based on stringent design criteria,

considering the operating environment,

gross vehicular weight, and top speed of

the vehicle.’’ Standard No. 119 ‘‘seems

especially inappropriate because the

eGO cannot, by design, operate

continuously for longer than

approximately 75 minutes, or be

propelled at a speed greater than 20

mph.’’ The endurance test (S6.1)

‘‘simulates conditions that would never

be encountered by the operator of the

vehicle simply by nature of the vehicle’s

design and performance restraints.’’ The

purpose of Standard No. 120, in EGO’s

view ‘‘is to assure that a consumer will

be able to purchase a tire that fits a

given rim, and that any tire purchased

in a given size will fit a rim of that size.’’

The petitioner believes it has achieved

that purpose in the tires and rims it has

selected for the eGO, and it will

encourage owners ‘‘to use the

replacement rims that we specify in the

documentation provided with the

vehicle.’’

According to EGO, an exemption

would be in the public interest as

supporting an innovative low-cost, lowemission means of transportation. An

exemption would be consistent with the

objectives of traffic safety because the

petitioner intends to comply with the

regulations that the Consumer Product

Safety Commission has promulgated for

bicycles. The petitioner also points out

that no tire and rim requirements are

imposed by Standard No. 500, Lowspeed Vehicles, on passenger-carrying

vehicles with a slightly higher

maximum speed (20 to 25 mph).

We received no comments on EGO’s

petition.

In order to grant the petitioner’s

request, NHTSA must find that ‘‘an

exemption would make easier the

development or field evaluation of’’ the

eGO, and that the exemption ‘‘would

not unreasonably lower the safety level

of the vehicle.’’

The eGO is represented to be more

like a bicycle than a motor driven cycle

and that the most similar components

that it has discovered are moped tires

and rims. However, EGO has concluded

that the dimensions of moped tires and

rims are not compatible with the eGO’s

chassis design or braking system. In

view of the fact that Standards Nos. 119

and 120 do not prescribe requirements

for bicycle-like tires and rims, and that

those that are available are not

compatible, we believe that the

petitioner has sustained the argument

that an exemption from these

requirements would make easier the

development and field evaluation of the

vehicle.

Given the fact that the maximum

speed of the eGO is 20 mph or less, the

vehicle is intended to be operated in

urban and suburban environments and

not on freeways or expressways. Thus,

the tires are not likely to be subject to

the same stresses as those manufactured

for use on higher-speed vehicles.

Further, an exemption from Standard

No. 119 is also an exemption from

Standard No. 120 which applies to

vehicles equipped with pneumatic tires

for highway service and requires them,

in pertinent part, to be equipped with

tires that meet Standard No. 119.

It is in the public interest to promote

the use of low-emission vehicles,

particularly in crowded urban

environments. It is anticipated that the

eGO will be certified to comply with all

other Federal motor vehicle safety

standards that apply to motor-driven

cycles.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is

hereby found that EGO Vehicles, Inc.,

has met its burden of persuasion that an

exemption would make easier the

development or field evaluation of a

low-emission motor vehicle and would

not unreasonably lower the safety level

of the vehicle. It is further found that an

exemption is in the public interest and

consistent with the objectives of motor

vehicle safety. Accordingly, EGO

Vehicles Inc. is hereby granted NHTSA

Temporary Exemption No. 2001–2 from

49 CFR 571.119 Standard No. 119, New

Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other

Than Passenger Cars, and 49 CFR

571.120 Standard No. 120, Tire

Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles

Other Than Passenger Cars. The

temporary exemption expires April 1,

2003.

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

authority at 49 CFR 1.50. and 501.8)

Issued on May 18, 2001.

L. Robert Shelton,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 01–13130 Filed 5–23–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

The Office of Thrift Supervision

(OTS) has submitted the following

public information collection

requirement(s) to OMB for review and

clearance under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–

13. Interested persons may obtain a

copy of the submission by calling the

Acting OTS Clearance Officer listed.

Send comments regarding this

information collection to the OMB

reviewer listed and to the Acting OTS

Clearance Officer, Information

Collection Comments, Chief Counsel’s

Office, Office of Thrift Supervision,

1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC

20552, FAX Number (202) 906–6518, or

e-mail to:

infocollection.comments@ots.treas.gov.

DATES: Submit written comments on or

before June 25, 2001.

OMB Number: 1550–0078.

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Renewal.

Title: Lending and Investment.

Description: Savings associations

must maintain adequate documentation

to support their lending and investment

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2001 / Notices 28773

activities. OTS staff may request the

information during examinations.

Respondents: Savings and Loan

Associations and Savings Banks.

Estimated Number of Respondents,

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent, Frequency of Response,

and Total Reporting Burden:

Regulatory provision (12 C.F.R.) Number of respondents

Number of

annual responses

Total number

of yearly

responses

Number of

hours per

response

Total number

of hours yearly

§ 560.101 and Appendix A to § 560.101 .............................. 1,068 1 1,068 40 42,720

§ 562.1(b); § 560.170 ........................................................... 1,068 1 1,068 44.4 47,419

§ 563.41(e); § 563.42(e) ....................................................... 1,068 1 1,068 4.6 4,913

§ 560.172; Part 564 .............................................................. 1,068 130 138,840 .33 45,817

§ 560.93(f)(2) ........................................................................ 1,068 9 9,612 1 9,612

§ 560.210 (Initial Notice) ...................................................... 1,068 415 443,220 .11 48,754

§ 560.210 (Adjustment Notice) ............................................. 1,068 415 443,220 .4 177,288

§ 590.4(h) ............................................................................. 176 2 352 1 352

§ 560.32 ................................................................................ 1,068 1 1,068 8 8,544

§ 560.35 ................................................................................ 120 1 120 20 2,400

Totals ......................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 387,819

Acting Clearance Officer: Sally W.

Watts, (202) 906–7380, Office of Thrift

Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW.,

Washington, D.C. 20552.

OMB Reviewer: Alexander Hunt, (202)

395–7860, Office of Management and

Budget, Room 10202, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, D.C.

20503.

Deborah Dakin,

Deputy Chief Counsel, Regulations &

Legislation Division.

[FR Doc. 01–13125 Filed 5–23–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6720–01–P