19444 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 18, 1995 / Notices

six accidents prompted concern about

the adequacy of the performance

standards for flight recorders. Minimum

performance standards for impact and

fire protection are outlined in four

Technical Standard Orders (TSO’s):

TSO–C84 and TSO–C123 address CVR’s

and TSO–C51a and TSO–C124 address

FDR’s. TSO–C51a and TSO–C84 have

essentially the same fire protection

requirements; the fire test protocol

requirements outlined in these TSO’s

are less stringent than the requirements

outlined in the recently issued TSO–

C123 and C124. Further, the fire test

protocol in TSO–C51a and C84 is so

vague that a recorder could be subjected

to temperatures much lower than 1,100

°C due to inadequate burner heat release

and still pass the test. The FAA

recognized this deficiency in its 1970

report, ‘‘Fire Test Criteria for

Recorders.’’ The report states:

‘‘This requirement [TSO–C51a/C84]

specifies the temperature, but not the source

or the BTU rate of the flame. The temperature

at the recorder flame impingement area must

be 1,100 °C (2,012 °F). Thus, a recorder could

meet the TSO requirements by passing a test

in which the recorder is exposed to low heat

output flames producing a temperature of

1,100 °C at a point of a few inches in front

of the recorder while the temperature at the

recorder case could be much less than 1,100

°C.’’

The temperature and duration for the

fire test required by TSO’s C51a, C84,

C123, and C124 are the same. However,

only the more exacting test protocol

prescribed by TSO–C124 is likely to

determine if a recorder will actually

survive a high intensity, short duration

fire.

Based on the findings of the NTSB,

TSO–C54a and TSO–C81 are canceled

May 18, 1995. Because of the need to

ensure that the data, cockpit voice

described above, is preserved, good

cause exists to cancel TSO’s C51a and

C84 without prior notice and

opportunity to comment.

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 12,

1995.

John K. McGrath,

Manager, Aircraft Engineering Division,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–9501 Filed 4–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. 92–58; Notice 4]

Kewet Industri; Grant of Application

for Renewal of Temporary Exemption

From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 208

Kewet Industri of Hadsund, Denmark,

applied for a two-year renewal of its

temporary exemption from the

automatic restraint requirements of

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208

Occupant Crash Protection. The

exemption, NHTSA Temporary

Exemption No. 93–1, was published on

February 10, 1993 (58 FR 7905). The

basis of the application was that a

continued exemption would facilitate

the development and field evaluation of

a low-emission motor vehicle and

would not unreasonably lower the

safety level of the vehicle.

Notice of receipt of the application

was published on January 12, 1995, and

an opportunity afforded for comment

(60 FR 3026).

Kewet manufactures a passenger car

called the El-Jet. The vehicle is powered

by on-board rechargeable batteries

which drive an electric traction motor.

The El-Jet, which produces no

emissions, is therefore a ‘‘low-emission

motor vehicle’’ within the meaning of

NHTSA’s authority to provide

temporary exemptions.

In 1992, Kewet argued that the

granting of a temporary exemption

would facilitate the development of an

electric vehicle industry in the United

States. The vehicle is so small that it

could serve as a replacement for the 3-

wheel Cushman type meter reader

vehicle in municipal fleets. It provides

greater safety for the operator at a

substantially lower price. Further, an

exemption would promote learning and

exchange of information between the

Danish electric vehicle industry and the

U.S. one. Finally, the El Jet would

demonstrate the commercial viability of

a ‘‘neighborhood electric vehicle.’’

Petitioner also argued that an

exemption would not unreasonably

degrade the safety of the vehicle. The ElJet is equipped with a 3-point restraint

system, and will otherwise comply with

all applicable Federal motor vehicle

safety standards. It complies with all

current European motor safety standards

and has passed a crash test at 50 kph (30

mph). Its top speed is only 40 mph,

reducing the risk of injury. Although

Kewet expected to be able to provide a

driver’s side air bag in all cars

manufactured after September 1993, the

target date is now the 1996 model year.

Originally, Kewet projected sales of 30

to 50 vehicles through 1993; in

actuality, sales in 1994 as of August 30

were ‘‘less than 35.’’

In Kewet’s opinion, a temporary

exemption would be in the public

interest and consistent with traffic

safety objectives because it is a

participant in the Advanced Research

Projects Agency (ARPA) Electrical

Vehicle Testing Program. It comments

that ‘‘[p]roviding test data to the

national testing program * * * is an

important development to the electric

vehicle industry.’’ Kewet does not feel

that lack of an air bag ‘‘has been a safety

hazard’’ because of the El-Jet’s low top

speed, and intended non-freeway use.

The vehicle is equipped with lap and

torso belts, and employs ‘‘steel roll cage

construction.’’

No comments were received in

response to the notice.

While the application was pending,

NHTSA asked Kewet to provide further

information on the 50 kph crash test to

which it had referred. Kewet supplied a

copy of a test report by TNO laboratory

of Delft, the Netherlands, and a video of

the test. The test was conducted to the

requirements of ECE R–12 in 1990, and

indicates conformance. The El Jet also

passed the body block tests at 24.1 kph

on the steering wheel, according to the

requirements of ECE–12. Kewet

confirmed to NHTSA that it will install

both a driver and passenger airbag

‘‘before the end of 1995.’’

With respect to the three-point belt

system that has been and will be

provided in the interim, Kewet

submitted a report on its seat belt

anchorages by the Danish Technology

Institute verifying compliance with

E.E.C. Regulation 76/115/E.E.C. These

reports have provided NHTSA with the

assurance necessary to find that an

exemption would not unreasonably

lower the safety level of the car. NHTSA

notes, too, that the vehicle is certified as

complying with all other Federal motor

vehicle safety standards.

Although Kewet’s market in the U.S.

has been extremely limited under its

exemption, the El Jet is one of the few

exempted vehicles of foreign

manufacture, and one which is a

purpose-built electric vehicle and not a

conversion. Thus, to extend the

exemption would enhance the

evaluation of electric vehicles under

U.S. road conditions. The public

interest will be served by the continued

participation of the El Jet in ARPA’s

electric vehicle test program.

Although a one-year extension would

appear to be sufficient for Kewet, the

agency is providing one of 18 months in

the event that unforeseen delays are
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 18, 1995 / Notices 19445

encountered in introducing airbag

technology into production.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is

hereby found that an extension of

Kewet’s exemption will facilitate the

development and field evaluation of a

low-emission motor vehicle and would

not unreasonably lower the safety level

of the vehicle, and, further, that such

extension is in the public interest and

consistent with the objectives of traffic

safety. Accordingly, NHTSA Temporary

Exemption No. 93–1 from S4.1.4 of 49

CFR 571.208 Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash

Protection, is hereby extended to July 1,

1996.

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

authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Issued on April 12, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–9504 Filed 4–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Public Information Collection

Requirements Submitted to OMB for

Review

April 11, 1995.

The Department of Treasury has

submitted the following public

information collection requirement(s) to

OMB for review and clearance under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,

Public Law 96–511. Copies of the

submission(s) may be obtained by

calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance

Officer listed. Comments regarding this

information collection should be

addressed to the OMB reviewer listed

and to the Treasury Department

Clearance Officer, Department of the

Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

Financial Management Service (FMS)

OMB Number: 1510–0029.

Form Number: TFS 5118.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Depositor’s Application for

Payment of Postal Savings

Certificates.

Description: This form is prepared when

a depositor has lost, destroyed or

misplaced his Postal Savings

Certificates. Form properly completed

and signed replaces unavailable

certificates to support application for

payment. If the original certificates

show up, this document prevents

duplicate payments from being made.

Respondents: Individuals or households

Estimated Number of Respondents: 250.

Estimated Burden Hours Per Response:

15 minutes.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 63

hours.

OMB Number: 1510–0038.

Form Number: TFS 6114.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: More Information Letter.

Description: This form is prepared when

information in an inquiry about Postal

Savings is insufficient to make a

search of files and records.

Respondents: Individuals or

households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 375.

Estimated Burden Hours Per Response:

15 minutes.

Frequency of Response: Other.

Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 94

hours.

OMB Number: 1510–0058.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Claims on Account of Treasury

Checks.

Description: A person making a claim

on a Treasury check provides

information concerning the check to

the agency which authorized the

issuance of the check. The

information is used to determine if

the claimant is entitled to the

proceeds of the check. Likely

claimants are individual recipients of

checks.

Respondents: Individuals or

households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1.

Estimated Burden Hours Per Response:

1 hour.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 1

hour.

Clearance Officer: Jacqueline R. Perry,

(301) 344–8577, Financial

Management Service, 3361–L 75th

Avenue, Landover, MD 20785.

OMB Reviewer: Milo Sunderhauf (202)

395–7340, Office of Management and

Budget, Room 10226, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, DC

20503.

Lois K. Holland,

Departmental Reports Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–9446 Filed 4–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–35–P

Public Information Collection

Requirements Submitted to OMB for

Review

April 10, 1995.

The Department of Treasury has

submitted the following public

information collection requirement(s) to

OMB for review and clearance under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,

Public Law 96–511. Copies of the

submission(s) may be obtained by

calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance

Officer listed. Comments regarding this

information collection should be

addressed to the OMB reviewer listed

and to the Treasury Department

Clearance Officer, Department of the

Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

OMB Number: 1545–0057.

Form Number: IRS Form 1024

Type of Review: Revision

Title: Application for Recognition of

Exemption Under Section 501(a)

Description: Organizations seeking

exemption from Federal income tax

under section 501(a) as an

organization described in most

paragraphs of section 501(c) must

apply to IRS for a ruling letter. The

information collected is used to

determine whether the organization

qualifies for exemption status.

Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents/

Recordkeepers: 4,718.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent/Recordkeeper:

Form Recordkeeping Learning about the law of the form

Preparing, and

sending the

form to IRS

1024 ........................................................ 53 hr., 5 min ........................................... 2 hr., 11 min ........................................... 3 hr., 8 min.

1024, Part IV ........................................... 1 hr., 12 min ........................................... 35 min ..................................................... 39 min.

1024, Sch. A ........................................... 58 min ..................................................... 18 min. .................................................... 19 min.

1024, Sch. B ........................................... 1 hr., 40 min ........................................... 18 min ..................................................... 20 min.

1024, Sch. C ........................................... 58 min. .................................................... 12 min ..................................................... 13 min

1024, Sch. D ........................................... 4 hr., 4 min ............................................. 18 min ..................................................... 22 min.

1024, Sch. E ........................................... 1 hr., 40 min ........................................... 18 min ..................................................... 20 min.

1024, Sch. F ............................................ 2 hr., 23 min ........................................... 12 min ..................................................... 14 min.

1024, Sch. G ........................................... 1 hr., 55 min ........................................... 6 min ....................................................... 8 min.