4894 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Notices

reviewed the suggestions that had been

submitted by the governments of Japan

and the Russian Federation and various

industry and consumer groups to

WP.29. These suggestions have been

placed in the docket for the request for

comments (NHTSA–00–7638).

The majority of those who

commented on NHTSA’s approach to

priority setting indicated that they

support NHTSA’s approach in

principle, but believe that modifications

are needed. The reasons for these

modifications included: (1) The need to

continue work on standards for which

resources already have been expended

and considerable progress has been

made; (2) the need to select regulations

that are easier to harmonize from both

the technical and the political points of

view; (3) the need to include regulations

that have been harmonized between

Europe and Japan (under the 1958

Agreement); (4) cost-savings to industry

and consumers; (5) the list of specific

standards under each category is not

comprehensive or includes subjects that

ought to be removed because of the lack

of a clear association with the category;

and (6) harmonizing specific aspects of

standards is not sufficient.

In response to the comments, NHTSA

wishes to clarify its approach to priority

setting. NHTSA’s statutory mission, and

thus the focus of its rulemaking

activities, is improving vehicle safety.

Accordingly, NHTSA must continue to

focus its resources on those standards

that improve motor vehicle safety in the

U.S.

However, the agency also devotes

considerable effort to refining and

updating its standards to permit

technological innovation, avoid

imposing unnecessary regulatory

burdens, and improve regulatory

effectiveness. Accordingly, NHTSA

recognizes the merit in including other

standards in the work of WP.29. NHTSA

agrees that consideration should be

given to including some standards based

on the fact that harmonization work is

already underway and progress has been

made on them. NHTSA itself has

already spent considerable resources on

some of these standards. With the

expenditure of limited additional

resources, NHTSA can work with other

contracting parties toward their

establishment as global technical

regulations. NHTSA will also continue

to collaborate with other contracting

parties to the 1998 Global Agreement on

standards of importance to those

contracting parties. In addition, NHTSA

agrees with including some standards

on the basis that it may be easy to

harmonize them. NHTSA believes that

working on those standards will help

the U.S. and other contracting parties

gain experience with the process of the

1998 Global Agreement.

B. Recommended Priorities

NHTSA’s recommended priorities are

largely unchanged. However, NHTSA

has decided to reorganize its

recommendations according to the

subject matter responsibilities of the

WP.29 Working Parties of Experts to

examine their potential impact on the

workload for each of the Working

Parties. Upon reviewing its preliminary

recommendations and the specific

standards that were recommended by

other contracting parties, interest groups

or commenters for each of the Working

Parties of Experts, NHTSA found that

the majority of the standards would be

assigned to the Working Party on

Passive Safety (GRSP). Therefore, in the

interest of promoting a manageable

workload, the agency has decided to

defer some of its recommendations. In

addition, based on the considerations

discussed above, NHTSA added

Motorcycle Brakes to its list of

recommendations for the Working Party

on Brakes and Running Gear (GRRF).

NHTSA’s final recommendations to

WP.29 are categorized below according

to the Working Parties of Experts. These

recommendations focus on standards

that NHTSA believes could be

productively worked on in the

immediate future. NHTSA will continue

to work on several long term projects

that are currently underway in NHTSA

and are also being coordinated in the

International Harmonized Research

Activities (IHRA). NHTSA will also

reevaluate the list set out below on a

regular basis to assess whether a

revision is merited.

In announcing its final

recommendations, NHTSA wants to

reaffirm its commitment to achieving

the goals of the National Traffic and

Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Further, the

agency cautions that its

recommendations to WP.29 under the

1998 Global Agreement should not be

confused with its more inclusive list of

rulemaking activities under the Vehicle

Safety Act.

NHTSA’s final recommendations to

be submitted to WP.29 at the March

2001 meeting.

1. Working Party on Passive Safety

Head restraints

Lower anchorages and tethers for

child safety seats

Door retention components

Dummies (10 year old frontal dummy

and 50th percentile side impact

dummy)

Frontal impact (full/offset) protection

2. Working Party on Brakes and

Running Gears

Tires

Motorcycle brakes

3. Working Party on Lighting and LightSignaling

Signal lamp visibility

4. Working Party on General Safety

Windshield wipers and washers

Controls and displays

Vehicle classification

III. Future Actions

At the March 2001 meeting in Geneva,

NHTSA will use its final

recommendations in deliberating with

the other Contracting Parties to the 1998

Global Agreement about a program of

work for the Working Parties of Experts.

NHTSA will report to the public on the

final outcome of the deliberations after

that meeting.

Issued on January 12, 2001.

Rosalyn G. Millman,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 01–1527 Filed 1–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–99–6324; Notice 2]

EMB Incorporated; Grant of

Application for Temporary Exemption

From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards Nos. 108 and 120

This notice grants the application by

EMB Incorporated (‘‘EMB’’) of

Sebastopol, California, for a 2-year

exemption from portions of Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Nos. 108

Lamps, Reflective Devices and

Associated Equipment, and 120 Tire

Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles

Other Than Passenger Cars. The

company does business as Electric

Motorbike, Inc., and has petitioned on

behalf of its Lectra VR24 motorcycle. In

the opinion of the company, a

temporary exemption ‘‘would make the

development or field evaluation of a

low-emission motor vehicle easier and

would not unreasonably lower the

safety level of that vehicle’’ (49 U.S.C.

30113(b)(3)(B)(iii)).

Notice of receipt of the petition was

published on July 17, 2000, and an

opportunity afforded for comment (65

FR 44092).

The discussion that follows is based

on information contained in EMB’s

application.

Why EMB needs a temporary

exemption. The company is developing

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Notices 4895

zero-emission (electric battery-powered)

vehicles. Due to a lack of readilyavailable components for these vehicles

needed to comply with Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 108 and

120, as explained below, EMB must

petition for an exemption from portions

of them, until July 1, 2002, as explained

below.

EMB’s arguments why an exemption

would facilitate the development and

field evaluation of a low-emission motor

vehicle and would not unreasonably

degrade the safety of that vehicle. In

order to make the company’s products

available for wider use, EMB believes

that a test and development period is

necessary to optimize product features

and functions. During the development

stage, it is likely that several design

changes will be made ‘‘to optimize the

product for acceptance by the wider

public.’’

It is important to place a limited

number of the product in service in

order to gain insights into the features,

functions and operating characteristics

of the product.

In order to do so, the petitioner

requested the following temporary

exemptions:

1. Standard No. 108

EMB utilizes a 24-volt lighting system

which presently creates an

incompatibility with available lighting

equipment, necessitating a temporary

exemption from three requirements of

Standard No. 108.

Table IV of Standard No. 108 requires

motorcycle turn signal lamps to meet

the applicable requirements of SAE

Standard J588NOV8 Turn Signal Lamps.

However, section 5.1.1.7 of Standard

No. 108 provides that ‘‘a motorcycle

turn signal lamp need meet only onehalf of the minimum photometric values

specified in Table 1 and Table 3’’ of

SAE J588NOV84. EMB stated that ‘‘turn

signals which operate at this voltage are

difficult to locate.’’ However, it has

found a supplier in Spain ‘‘which offers

European-compliant turn signals for 24-

volt operation.’’ The turn signal unit

‘‘meets European requirements 50R E9.’’

EMB believes that the European

standard is equivalent to that of section

5.1.1.7, e.g., that an exemption would

not unduly degrade the safety of the

vehicle.

Table III of Standard No. 108 requires

motorcycles to be equipped with turn

signal lamps and a turn signal operating

unit. Section 5.5.6 requires all vehicles

equipped with a turn signal operating

unit to have also an illuminated pilot

indicator, which will inform the

operator when one or more turn signal

lamps fails to operate. However, no

indication is required if a variable-load

turn signal flasher has been installed on

a motor vehicle type specified in section

5.5.6. A motorcycle is not one of the

vehicle types specified, and the Lectra

VR24 incorporates a variable load

flasher. As noted above, the company

uses a 24-volt DC power source for turn

signal lamps. Outage indication is not

presently available in 24 volt DC flasher

units, therefore, the turn signal indicator

on the dashboard will not indicate a

failed lamp.

EMB argued that the open nature of

the motorcycle makes it ‘‘easy for an

operator to check for proper operation of

all lights and signals * * .*’’

EMB also sought exemption from

certain portions of Section 7.9 which

specifies headlighting requirements for

motorcycles. In pertinent part, EMB

wishes to meet the photometric

specifications of Figure 32. At the

present time, motorcycle headlamps are

not available in 24-volt versions, and

the company has chosen ‘‘a military

vehicle headlamp’’ manufactured by

‘‘Wagner Corporation.’’ This headlamp

‘‘does meet requirements for passenger

car headlighting systems.’’ The upper

beam of the headlamp meets all

requirements for motorcycle headlamp

upper beams, and complies with all

lower beam test points as well, with the

exception of Test Point 2D–3L, where

there is a shortfall of 7 percent.

EMB argued that the shortfall does not

unreasonably degrade safety because the

Lectra VR24 is designed for a cruising

speed of 30 mph and the headlamp does

meet requirements for this equipment

on motor driven cycles.

Finally, the lens of the headlamp will

not be marked ‘‘motorcycle’’ as required

by Section 7.9.5 for a headlamp of the

type intended to be used.

During the exemption period, EMB

plans to develop a lighting system that

fully complies with Standard No. 108.

2. Standard No. 120

Section 5.2 Rim marking of Standard

No. 120 requires, in pertinent part, that

each rim be embossed or debossed with

certain specified information. The

wheel that EMB has selected was not

embossed with the information at time

of manufacture but has been

subsequently stamped with indelible

ink. All the information is present and

in the required location. These wheels

meet ISO 8644, ISO 8645, and TUV

specifications. EMB will work with

suppliers to ensure that future rims are

properly marked.

EMB’s arguments why an exemption

would be consistent with the public

interest and objectives of motor vehicle

safety. EMB ‘‘is developing zeroemission vehicles which are consistent

with the goals and desires of society for

a cleaner and quieter environment, and

reduced reliance on fossil fuels.’’

Even with the exemptions requested,

EMB argued that the Lectra VR24

exhibits an overall level of safety

equivalent to that prescribed by the

Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Agency Response and Decision

We received no public comments on

the application.

EMB is eligible for a temporary

exemption on the basis on which it has

applied because it intends to produce a

zero-emission vehicle. The manufacture

of zero-emission vehicles is in the

public interest, not only for California

where EMB is located but also for the

rest of the country as well.

In order to grant EMB’s application,

we must also make findings that an

exemption would not unreasonably

lower the safety of the Lectra VR24

motorcycle, and that an exemption

would be consistent with the objectives

of traffic safety.

Unlike other motorcycles, EMB has

designed the Lectra VS24 with a 24-volt

lighting system. The company does not

know whether the turn signal system

will comply with the optional

performance allowed by Section 5.1.1.7,

but has found that the unit will meet an

applicable European requirement,

which it believes is equivalent to the

performance allowed by Section 5.1.1.7.

Does NHTSA, as opposed to the

petitioner, believe that it is equivalent,

and if so, on what objective basis do we

form that belief? Pls look at Appendix

B of 553. It addresses how the agency

makes equivalency determinations. Pls

note that it requires a degree of rigor in

making such determinations. It would

seem, therefore, that the Lectra VS24

will have the equivalent of a complying

turn signal system, and, if it does not,

that it will be sufficiently close to the

requirements of Standard No. 108 that

the level of safety would not be

‘‘unreasonably’’ lower. On what

objective basis do we conclude that it

will be sufficiently close?

Standard No. 108 does not require

that a turn signal pilot indicator be

provided on vehicles other than

motorcycles when the flasher is a

variable-load type. The Lectra VS24

uses a variable load turn signal flasher,

and no indicator has been provided. It

argued that the open nature of the

motorcycle makes it easy for an operator

to check the proper operation of the

signals. Variable load flashers are

intended to accommodate vehicles

larger than motorcycles that haul other

vehicles on which turn signal systems

4896 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Notices

are installed. Motorcycles were omitted

from the exclusion, not for safety

reasons, but because there was no

reason to include them. We agree with

EMB that an operator will have an

actual visual indication if the Lectra

VS24’s system is not working. We find

no safety impact under these

circumstances.

The headlamp EMB has chosen is one

for military vehicles. It fails to meet one

photometric test point, with a shortfall

of 7 percent. In addition, the lens is not

marked ‘‘motorcycle.’’ EMB argues that

this does not unreasonably degrade

safety because the Lectra VS24 is

designed for a cruising speed of 30 mph

and its headlamp will meet the

requirement for headlamps on motor

driven cycles.

We do not find this argument

appropriate. The exceptions that

Standard No. 108 makes for lighting

equipment on motor driven cycles with

a maximum speed of 30 mph are only

for turn signals and stop lamps (see

section 5.1.1.21 and section 5.1.1.22).

While a shortfall of 7 per cent is a

failure, it occurs at only one test point

on the lower beam. Even if this is

assumed to represent a lowering of the

safety of the vehicle, the effect would be

minimal and not ‘‘unreasonable.’’ The

presence of the word ‘‘motorcycle’’ on

the headlamp lens is intended to advise

prospective purchasers of replacement

headlamps that the headlamp has not

been designed for use on vehicles other

than motorcycles. Since the petition has

not been filed by the manufacturer of

the headlamp and does not relate to the

aftermarket, the noncompliance is of a

technical nature only.

With respect to Standard No. 120, the

required rim markings are present, but

they have been stamped in indelible ink

rather than being embossed or debossed.

While the intent of the standard is to

provide permanent marking for the

rims, stamping in indelible ink ought to

be an acceptable equivalent. Does that

mean we would grant an

inconsequentiality request for rims

marked with ink instead of embossed or

debossed? We note that future rims will

be properly marked.

The exemptions from these

requirements are minor, and hence,

compatible with the safety mission of

the agency.

On the basis of the foregoing, we find

that a temporary exemption would make

the development and field evaluation of

a low-emission motor vehicle easier and

would not unreasonably lower the

safety level of that vehicle. We also find

that a temporary exemption would be in

the public interest and consistent with

the objectives of motor vehicle safety.

Accordingly, EMB Incorporated is

granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption

No. EX2000–4 from section 5.1.1.7 and

section 7.9 of 49 CFR 571.108 Standard

No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and

Associated Equipment, and from that

portion of section 5.2 of 49 CFR 571.120

Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and

Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than

Passenger Cars which requires marking

‘‘in lettering not less than 3 millimeters

high, impressed to a depth or, at the

option of the manufacturer, embossed to

e height of not less than 0.125

millimeters.’’ The exemption shall

expire July 1, 2002.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.4.

Issued on: January 11, 2001.

Rosalyn G. Millman,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 01–1526 Filed 1–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

[Docket No. RSPA–01–8587; Notice No. 01–

01]

Hazardous Materials Safety Advisory:

Unauthorized Marking of Compressed

Gas Cylinders

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Safety Advisory Notice.

SUMMARY: This is to notify the public

that RSPA is investigating the apparent

unauthorized and improper marking of

high-pressure compressed gas cylinders

by FESS, Inc. d/b/a Fire Extinguisher

Service and Sales, 3303 Superior

Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, during the

period 1995 to the present. Those

cylinders may pose a safety risk to the

public. Under no circumstances should

a cylinder described in this safety

advisory be filled, refilled or used for

any purpose other than scrap until it is

reinspected and retested by a DOTauthorized retest facility.

RSPA requires that compressed gas

cylinders undergo a visual reinspection

and a hydrostatic retest on a periodic

basis, in accordance with the Hazardous

Materials Regulations (HMR), in order to

verify that a cylinder has the structural

integrity for continued use. If the

required visual reinspection and

hydrostatic retest are not performed

properly, a cylinder with compromised

structural integrity may fail (leak or

burst) in continued service, when it

should have been condemned. Serious

personal injury, death, and property

damage could result from rupture of a

cylinder. Cylinders that have not been

retested in accordance with the HMR

may not be charged or filled with a

hazardous material (compressed gas).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Guadalupe ‘‘Lupe’’ Castellanos,

Hazardous Materials Enforcement

Specialist, Central Region, Office of

Hazardous Materials Enforcement,

Research and Special Programs

Administration, US Department of

Transportation, 2350 East Devon

Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018.

Telephone: (847) 294–8580; Fax: (847)

294–8590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Until

March 19, 1998, FESS held a retester

identification number (RIN) issued by

RSPA, authorizing FESS to requalify

DOT and ICC specification compressed

gas cylinders for continued use in

accordance with the requirements in 49

CFR 173.34(e) of the HMR for

performing a periodic visual inspection

and hydrostatic retest. In its most recent

application for renewal of its RIN, FESS

stated that it reinspected and retested

approximately 800 DOT specification

3A, 3AA, and 3AL cylinders each year.

When used as fire extinguishers, the

retest period for these cylinders can be

as long as 12 years. 49 CFR

173.34(e)(19)(ii).

During a recent inspection at FESS’s

facility in Cleveland, Ohio, RSPA

determined that FESS had marked an

undetermined number of cylinders after

its RIN expired on March 19, 1998.

RSPA also concluded that FESS had

marked many cylinders, both before and

after that date, which may not have been

properly reinspected and retested. It

appeared to RSPA’s inspector that FESS

was not able to assure that its

hydrostatic retest equipment was

accurate to the required degree, based

on its failure to have documentation

showing the test pressures and readings

for its calibrated cylinder and based on

the condition of its retest apparatus and

calibrated cylinder at the time of the

inspection. FESS acknowledged that it

customarily marked cylinders before

inspecting and testing them, and its test

records were incomplete in a number of

regards, including lack of entries for

certain cylinders observed during

RSPA’s inspection; the dates on which

cylinders were purportedly reinspected

and retested; and the initial retest

attempt when a cylinder was retested a

second time due to equipment failure on

the first retest attempt. In addition,

FESS did not have the current version

of the requirements for requalification of

compressed gas cylinders in 49 CFR