Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2015 / Notices 101 

1See 49 U.S.C. 30113. 

docket affects their comments, they may 

submit comments after the closing date 

concerning how the agency should 

consider that information. If a comment 

is received too late for us to practicably 

consider it in developing a final rule, we 

will consider that comment as an 

informal suggestion for future 

rulemaking action. 

How can I read the comments 

submitted by other people? 

You may read the materials placed in 

the docket for this document (e.g., the 

comments submitted in response to this 

document by other interested persons) 

at any time by going to http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

You may also read the materials at the 

NHTSA Docket Management Facility by 

going to the street addresses given above 

under ADDRESSES. 

John Donaldson, 

Acting Senior Associate Administrator, Policy 

and Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30728 Filed 12–31–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0068] 

Toyota Motor North America, Inc.; 

Grant of Petition for Temporary 

Exemption from an Electrical Safety 

Requirement of FMVSS No. 305 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of grant of a petition for 

a temporary exemption from a provision 

of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 305, Electricpowered vehicles: electrolyte spillage 

and electrical shock protection. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

procedures in 49 CFR part 555, Toyota 

Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota) 

petitioned the agency for a temporary 

exemption from one portion of FMVSS 

No. 305 that requires manufacturers to 

maintain a certain level of electrical 

isolation (or reduce the voltage below 

specified levels) of high voltage 

electrical components in an electric 

vehicle (EV) in the event of a crash. 

Toyota states that their forthcoming fuel 

cell vehicle (FCV) models cannot meet 

this requirement due to certain design 

characteristics innate to FCVs. Toyota is 

instead using alternative strategies to 

help ensure that occupants and first 

responders are protected in the event of 

a crash. After reviewing Toyota’s 

petition and the comments received, the 

agency has decided to grant the petition. 

The agency has determined that 

Toyota’s petition for exemption would 

facilitate the development or field 

evaluation of a low-emission motor 

vehicle and would not unreasonably 

reduce the safety level of that vehicle. 

DATES: This exemption is effective from 

June 1, 2015 to May 31, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jesse Chang, Office of the Chief Counsel, 

NCC–112, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Telephone: (202) 366–2992; Fax: (202) 

366–3820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of NHTSA’s Decision To Grant 

Toyota’s Petition 

II. Statutory Authority for Temporary 

Exemptions 

III. The Electrical Safety Requirement in 

FMVSS No. 305 and Its Purpose 

IV. Overview of Petition 

V. Notice of Receipt 

VI. Agency Analysis and Decision 

a. Makes Easier the Development or Field 

Evaluation of a Low-Emission Vehicle 

b. Does Not Unreasonably Lower the Safety 

of the Vehicle 

c. Consistent With the Public Interest 

VII. Plan to Comply With the Standard at the 

End of the Exemption Period and 

Response to Honda’s Comment 

VIII. Conclusion 

I. Summary of NHTSA’s Decision To 

Grant Toyota’s Petition 

The subject of Toyota’s petition is a 

portion of the electrical safety 

requirements in paragraph S5.3 of 

FMVSS No. 305 that are intended to 

reduce the risk of high voltage electrical 

shock to the vehicle’s occupants and the 

first responders in the event of a crash. 

Toyota stated in its petition that certain 

design aspects innate to Fuel Cell 

Vehicles (FCVs) preclude the vehicle 

from meeting those electrical safety 

requirements in paragraph S5.3 of 

FMVSS No. 305 under certain 

conditions. However, Toyota stated that 

it will implement various alternative 

strategies to ensure that the vehicle 

occupants and first responders are 

protected from an undue risk of high 

voltage electrical shock after a crash. 

Because they assert that they cannot 

meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 

305 due to design characteristics innate 

to FCVs, they also state that they cannot 

comply with the standard at the 

conclusion of the exemption period. 

However, they have instead submitted a 

petition for rulemaking to suggest 

changes to FMVSS No. 305 to help 

accommodate FCVs while still ensuring 

a high level of protection for vehicle 

occupants and first responders from 

dangerous electrical shock in the event 

of a crash. 

As further discussed below, we are 

granting Toyota’s petition because the 

exemption would facilitate the 

development or field evaluation of a 

low-emission vehicle and would not 

unreasonably reduce the safety level of 

that vehicle. While Toyota petitioned 

for this exemption under two alternative 

bases, we have decided to grant Toyota’s 

petition on the basis that it would 

facilitate the development of a lowemission vehicle. Therefore, this 

document will not address the merits of 

Toyota’s alternative basis for the 

petition (prevent the sale of a vehicle 

whose overall safety is at least 

equivalent to compliant vehicles). 

II. Statutory Authority for Temporary 

Exemptions 

The National Traffic and Motor 

Vehicle Safety Act (‘‘Motor Vehicle 

Safety Act’’), codified at 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301, provides the Secretary of 

Transportation authority to exempt, on 

a temporary basis and under specified 

circumstances, motor vehicles from a 

motor vehicle safety standard or bumper 

standard. This authority is set forth at 

49 U.S.C. 30113. The Secretary has 

delegated the authority for 

implementing this section to NHTSA. 

The Act authorizes the Secretary to 

grant a temporary exemption to a 

vehicle manufacturer if it is consistent 

with the public interest and it meets 

certain conditions. The relevant 

condition for Toyota’s petition requires 

the Secretary to find that ‘‘the 

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.’’ 1

NHTSA established 49 CFR part 555, 

Temporary Exemption from Motor 

Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, 

to implement the statutory provisions 

concerning temporary exemptions. The 

requirements specified in 49 CFR 555.5 

state that the petitioner must set forth 

the basis of the application by providing 

the required information under Part 

555.6, and the reasons why the 

exemption would be in the public 

interest and consistent with the 

objectives of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. 

A petition under the basis that the 

exemption would make easier the 

development or field evaluation of a 

low-emission motor vehicle must 

include the information specified in 49 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
102 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2015 / Notices 

2See 65 FR 57980 (Sept. 27, 2000). 

3See id. 

4See 75 FR 33515 (June 14, 2010). NHTSA also 

answered petitions for reconsideration on this final 

rule on July 29, 2011 dealing with clarifying the 

definitions and test procedures of the June 14, 2010 

final rule. See 76 FR 45436. 

5The speed condition for each test is specified in 

paragraphs S6.1 to S6.3. 

6Additional information is available in Toyota’s 

petition. The petition is available in the docket 

referenced at the beginning of this document. 

7Toyota also petitioned under an alternative basis 

stating that compliance with FMVSS No. 305 would 

prevent it from selling a motor vehicle with an 

overall safety level at least equal to the overall 

safety level of non-exempt vehicles. However, as 

stated above, we have decided to grant this 

exemption under the basis that it would facilitate 

the development of a low-emission vehicle. Thus, 

we do not reach the merits of Toyota’s alternative 

basis in this document. To view the application, go 

to http://www.regulations.gov and enter the docket 

number set forth in the heading of this document. 

CFR 555.6(c). The main requirements of 

that section include: (1) Substantiation 

that the vehicle is a low-emission 

vehicle; (2) documentation establishing 

that a temporary exemption would not 

unreasonably lower the safety of a 

vehicle; (3) substantiation that a 

temporary exemption would facilitate 

the development or field evaluation of 

the vehicle; and (4) a statement of 

whether the petitioner intends to 

conform to the standard at the end of 

the exemption period. 

III. The Electrical Safety Requirement 

in FMVSS No. 305 and Its Purpose 

In 2000, the agency created Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 

No. 305 to help facilitate the safe 

introduction of EVs into the 

marketplace.2 While FMVSS No. 305 

addresses a number of safety concerns 

relevant to EVs (e.g., battery retention 

and electrolyte spillage), paragraph S5.3 

of the standard (at issue here) requires 

EVs to maintain electrical isolation of 

various major electrical components 

(e.g., components related to the 

vehicle’s propulsion) after specified 

crash tests. The purpose of the 

requirements in S5.3 is to reduce the 

risk of high voltage electrical shock to 

the vehicle’s occupants and first 

responders in the event of a crash.3

NHTSA published its most recent 

major update to the S5.3 requirements 

in 2010.4 In this update, NHTSA 

expanded the types of electrical 

components that would be covered by 

the requirement and the options 

available for complying with the 

requirement. Namely, the agency 

expanded the coverage of the standard 

to include other high voltage 

components of the EV beyond the 

propulsion battery. Further, the updated 

requirements recognize the different 

safety implications between Alternating 

Current (AC) and Direct Current (DC) by 

establishing different requirements for 

each type of electrical component. 

FMVSS No. 305 further specifies 

various crash test conditions under 

which a vehicle is required to meet the 

aforementioned requirements. 

Depending on the particular crash 

scenario (e.g., frontal barrier, rear 

moving barrier, and side moving 

deformable barrier), the tests can be 

conducted at any speed up to a 

maximum speed of 48, 80, or 54 km/h, 

respectively.5

IV. Overview of Petition 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 

and the procedures in 49 CFR part 555, 

Toyota Motor North America, Inc. 

(Toyota) submitted a petition asking the 

agency for a temporary exemption from 

the electrical safety requirements in 

paragraph S5.3 of FMVSS No. 305. They 

stated that they plan to manufacture 

FCV models and that certain aspects of 

their FCV design prevent it from 

meeting the requirements in S5.3 of 

FMVSS No. 305. 

As described above, the requirements 

of paragraph S5.3 state that (after certain 

specified crash tests) a vehicle must 

maintain an electrical isolation of 500 

ohms/volt for AC high voltage sources 

(and DC high voltage sources without 

electrical isolation monitoring) or 100 

ohms/volt for DC high voltage sources 

with electrical isolation monitoring. 

Vehicles subject to FMVSS No. 305 

must meet these requirements when 

tested under any speed up to a 

maximum speed of 48, 54, or 80 km/h 

(depending on the particular crash test). 

Toyota stated in its petition that its 

FCVs will be able to meet the 

requirements of paragraph S5.3 of 

FMVSS No. 305 under some, but not all, 

of the specified test speeds. The 

company stated that under higher 

speeds (e.g., speeds similar to when an 

air bag would deploy), an automatic 

disconnect mechanism activates to 

ensure that the high voltage components 

will meet the requirements of paragraph 

S5.3. However, Toyota stated that the 

automatic disconnect mechanism in its 

FCVs will not be triggered in impacts at 

relatively low speeds. Toyota believes it 

would not be appropriate to equip FCVs 

with sensors that would trigger the 

automatic disconnect mechanism 

following minor impacts (such as 

parking lot collisions or curb contacts) 

because it is not possible to drive the 

vehicle after the system is disconnected. 

Toyota stated that its FCV would be 

unable to meet the requirements of 

paragraph S5.3 in such low speed crash 

conditions where the automatic 

disconnect mechanism is not triggered.6

In support of their petition, Toyota 

stated that this exemption would make 

the development or field evaluation of 

a low-emission motor vehicle easier and 

would not unreasonably lower the 

safety level of the vehicle.7 Toyota 

requests the exemption (under either 

basis) for 2 years (June 1, 2015 to May 

31, 2017) and has stated that it would 

not produce more than 2,500 exempted 

FCVs within any 12-month period 

during the exemption. 

In support of its assertion that the 

exemption would facilitate the 

development of a low-emission vehicle, 

Toyota states that its FCVs qualify as a 

low-emission vehicle because its FCVs 

will not emit particulate matter. Further, 

Toyota states that the FCV’s 

noncompliance with paragraph S5.3 of 

FMVSS No. 305 would not 

unreasonably lower the safety of the 

vehicle because the vehicle has 

additional safety features designed to 

protect vehicle occupants and first 

responders in the event of a crash. First, 

Toyota equipped the FCV high voltage 

sources with physical barriers that they 

believe would prevent any direct 

physical contact with live voltage 

sources after the crash. Second, Toyota 

ensured that all physical barriers would 

be grounded to the chassis with a 

grounding resistance of less than 0.1 

ohms. The company states that this 

would protect against any indirect 

contact with high voltage sources. 

Finally, Toyota states that the high 

voltage sources would continue to 

maintain an electrical isolation of 100 

ohms/volt. Through the combination of 

these three attributes, Toyota believes 

that the noncompliance with paragraph 

S5.3 would not unreasonably lower the 

safety of its FCVs. 

V. Notice of Receipt 

On June 11, 2014, we published in the 

Federal Register (79 FR 33639) a notice 

of receipt of Toyota’s petition for 

temporary exemption, and provided an 

opportunity for public comment. We 

received one comment from American 

Honda Motor Co., Inc., (Honda) seeking 

to clarify that their fuel cell vehicle (the 

Honda FCX Clarity) is compliant with 

the requirements of FMVSS No. 305 and 

that their future vehicles will also be 

compliant with the standard. 

In addition, Honda supported 

Toyota’s assertion that the current 

electrical isolation requirements in S5.3 

may not accommodate lower electrical 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2015 / Notices 103 

8The AC and DC high voltage sources are in 

parallel configuration so that the effective resistance 

of the combined system is RAC x RDC/(RAC+RDC), 

where RAC is the isolation resistance of the AC 

source and RDC is the isolation resistance of the DC 

source. 

9A vehicle is considered a low-emission vehicle 

for the purposes of § 30113 of the Motor Vehicle 

Safety Act if it emits air pollutants significantly 

below the standards for new vehicle set under § 202 

of the Clean Air Act. Since FCVs do not emit such 

pollutants, they are considered low-emissions 

vehicles under § 30113. 10See 49 CFR part 555.9. 

isolation requirements for DC high 

voltage sources such as fuel cells and 

propulsion batteries. Honda agreed that 

vehicles cannot take advantage of the 

separate electrical isolation 

requirements specified in S5.3 for DC 

high voltage sources (100 ohms/volt) in 

low speed crashes when the automatic 

disconnect is not triggered. Honda 

stated that in such low speed crashes, 

the AC and DC sources are connected 

and so the isolation resistance measured 

across the AC source is the combined 

resistance of the AC and DC sources.8 In 

order to obtain an electrical isolation 

measurement greater than or equal to 

500 ohms/volt across the AC high 

voltage source when the automatic 

disconnect is not triggered, the DC 

source would need to have an electrical 

isolation greater than or equal to 500 

ohms/volt. 

VI. Agency Analysis and Decision 

After reviewing Toyota’s petition, the 

agency has determined that granting a 

temporary exemption in this case would 

make the development or field 

evaluation of a low-emission motor 

vehicle easier without unreasonably 

lowering the safety level of that vehicle 

and would be consistent with the public 

interest. 

a. Makes Easier the Development or 

Field Evaluation of a Low-Emission 

Vehicle 

First, we conclude that Toyota’s FCV 

models would be considered a lowemission vehicle for the purposes of the 

§ 30113 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act 

because FCVs are vehicles that do not 

emit any air pollutants from their 

tailpipes.9 Further, we believe that the 

temporary exemption would make 

easier the development of those 

vehicles. As Toyota stated in their 

petition, obtaining field information 

about new technologies (especially 

information about consumer reaction 

and real world performance) would 

facilitate Toyota’s development and 

decisions on potential modifications to 

future versions of their FCVs. Given the 

nature of this technology as a zeroemission technology and the 

information that Toyota intends to 

obtain from the field operation of these 

vehicles, we believe that Toyota has 

fulfilled this criterion. 

b. Does Not Unreasonably Lower the 

Safety of the Vehicle 

Second, we conclude that granting 

this temporary exemption would not 

unreasonably lower the safety of these 

vehicles. As Toyota described in their 

petition, their vehicles would comply 

with the requirements of FMVSS No. 

305 under the higher speed testing 

conditions. However, the FCVs would 

be unable to comply with the standard 

under testing conditions where the 

automatic disconnect does not activate 

to separate the AC and DC high voltage. 

These test conditions would be the 

lower speed conditions (such as speeds 

where an air bag would not deploy). 

However, we do not believe that this 

non-compliance would unreasonably 

lower the safety of Toyota’s FCVs in this 

case for two reasons. First, Toyota 

intends to design its FCVs to be fully 

compliant with FMVSS No. 305 at 

higher crash speeds. Thus, under many 

of the crash conditions that can occur in 

the real world, the Toyota FCVs will be 

no different from any other vehicle with 

high voltage electrical components that 

comply with FMVSS No. 305. Second, 

Toyota stated in its petition that it will 

implement alternative safety measures 

to ensure the safety of the vehicle 

occupants and first responders will be 

protected from electric shock hazards 

after a crash. As described above, 

Toyota intends to use the combination 

of three additional safety features (a 

physical barrier to prevent physical 

contact with the high voltage source + 

the grounding of the physical barriers to 

the chassis + the maintaining of an 

electrical isolation of 100 ohms/volt) to 

address the safety concern under lower 

speed crash conditions. 

When considering the narrower set of 

circumstances under which Toyota’s 

FCVs would be non-compliant with the 

requirements of FMVSS No. 305 in 

conjunction with the alternative safety 

countermeasures that Toyota intends to 

incorporate, we do not believe that 

granting the exemption would 

unreasonably lower the safety of 

Toyota’s FCVs. 

c. Consistent With the Public Interest 

Finally, we believe that granting 

Toyota’s petition is consistent with the 

public interest. FCVs implement an 

alternative fuel technology in motor 

vehicles. They are zero-emissions like 

battery electric vehicles. However, as 

stated in Toyota’s petition, they can 

have driving range, refueling time, and 

cold weather performance advantages 

over pure battery electric vehicles. We 

believe that this temporary exemption 

would not only increase consumer 

choice in the vehicle market, but would 

also help demonstrate to the public the 

viability of this type of electric vehicle 

technology. Further, we believe that the 

information Toyota intends to collect 

through the field operation of these 

FCVs (e.g., consumer reaction and real 

world performance information) will 

contribute to not only Toyota’s 

development of future FCV models but 

also the aggregate knowledge of real 

world use of FCVs. 

Additionally, we believe that the 

requested exemption will have a limited 

impact on general motor vehicle safety 

because Toyota will be limited to an 

annual production of 2,500 vehicles 

under this exemption. Further, 

prospective purchasers will be notified 

that the vehicle is exempted from the 

electrical isolation requirements of 

FMVSS No. 305. Under § 555.9(b), a 

manufacturer of an exempted vehicle 

must affix securely to the windshield or 

side window of each exempted vehicle 

a label containing a statement that the 

vehicle conforms to all applicable 

FMVSSs in effect on the date of 

manufacture ‘‘except for Standard Nos. 

[listing the standards by number and 

title for which an exemption has been 

granted] exempted pursuant to NHTSA 

Exemption No.l.’’ Under § 555.9(c), 

this information must also be included 

on the vehicle’s certification label.10

VII. Plan To Comply With the Standard 

at the End of the Exemption Period and 

Response to Honda’s Comment 

As Toyota believes that issues 

inherent with the design of FCVs 

prevent it from fully complying with the 

requirements of FMVSS No. 305, Toyota 

states that it does not anticipate it will 

be able to comply with the standard in 

the future. However, it instead stated its 

intention to petition for rulemaking and 

recommend to the agency a solution that 

will ensure the same level of safety as 

FMVSS No. 305 currently offers while 

still accommodating the design 

challenges related to FCVs. We note that 

Honda also supported the position that 

this is a technical issue with the 

standard via their comment that FCVs 

are unable to take advantage of the 

lower isolation resistance requirements 

for DC high voltage sources without an 

automatic disconnect to separate them 

from the AC sources. 

The agency has already received 

Toyota’s petition for rulemaking on this 

matter and the agency will be 

considering the merits of that petition. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
104 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2015 / Notices 

While we have determined in this 

notice that Toyota’s FCV design (along 

with their alternative safety measures) 

do not unreasonably degrade safety for 

the purposes of this exemption, we have 

not yet made any determinations 

regarding Toyota’s petition for 

rulemaking. 

VIII. Conclusion 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 

30113(b)(3)(B)(iii), we are granting 

Toyota NHTSA Temporary Exemption 

No. EX 14–02 from paragraph S5.3 of 

FMVSS No. 305 provided that Toyota 

implements the alternative measures to 

ensure electrical safety as described 

above. The exemption shall be effective 

from June 1, 2015 to May 31, 2017, as 

indicated in the DATES section of this 

document. 

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

authority at 49 CFR 1.95. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

22, 2014 under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.95 and 501.5. 

David J. Friedman, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30749 Filed 12–31–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

Notice of Application for Special 

Permits 

AGENCY: Office of Hazardous Materials 

Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: List of applications for special 

permits. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

procedures governing the application 

for, and the processing of, special 

permits from the Department of 

Transportation’s Hazardous Material 

Regulations (49 CFR part 107, subpart 

B), notice is hereby given that the Office 

of Hazardous Materials Safety has 

received the application described 

herein. Each mode of transportation for 

which a particular special permit is 

requested is indicated by a number in 

the ‘‘Nature of Application’’ portion of 

the table below as follows: 1—Motor 

vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 

4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passengercarrying aircraft. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 2, 2015. 

Address Comments to: Record Center, 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials, 

Safety Administration, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, Washington, DC 

20590. 

Comments should refer to the 

application number and be submitted in 

triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of 

comments is desired, include a selfaddressed stamped postcard showing 

the special permit number. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Copies of the 

applications are available for inspection 

in the Records Center, East Building, 

PHH–30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 

Southeast, Washington, DC or at http:// 

regulations.gov. 

This notice of receipt of applications 

for special permit is published in 

accordance with part 107 of the Federal 

hazardous materials transportation law 

(49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 8, 

2014. 

Donald Burger, 

Chief, General Approvals and Permits. 

Application 

No. Docket No. Applicant Regulation(s) affected Nature of special permits thereof 

NEW SPECIAL PERMITS 

16316–N ...... ..................... Green Auto Products 

International, Inc., 

Orlando, FL.

49 CFR 171.2(k), 172.202(a)(5)(iii)(b), part 

172, subpart H.

To authorize the transportation in commerce of certain used DOT 3AL cylinders that contain oxygen, but not necessarily in an amount qualifying as hazardous material. (modes 1, 2, 3) 

16318–N ...... ..................... Technical Chemical 

Company, 

Cleburne, TX.

49 CFR 173.304(d), 173.306(a)(3) ............. To authorize the manufacture, mark, sale 

and use of a non-DOT specification 

packaging conforming in part with specification DOT 2Q. (modes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 

16320–N ...... ..................... Digital Wave Corporation, Centennial, CO.49 CFR 180.205(g) ..................................... To authorize the extension of the service 

life of certain DOT–CFFC cylinders 

which are subjected to certain requalification and operational controls. (modes 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 

16321–N ...... ..................... China Oilfield Services Limited Beijing.49 CFR 173.201, 173.301(f), 173.302, 

173.304a.

To authorize the manufacture, mark, sale, 

and use of certain non-DOT specification 

cylinders containing certain Division 2.1, 

2.2, and Class 3 materials used for oil 

well sampling. (modes 1, 2, 3, 4) 

16323–N ...... ..................... Fibre Drum Sales, 

Inc., Blue Island, IL.

49 CFR 172.203(a), 172.302(c), 180.352 ... To authorize installation of a tested inner 

receptacle of a composite IBC without 

subjecting the inner receptacle to a 

leakproofness test after installation. 

(modes 1, 2, 3) 

16331–N ...... ..................... Airgas Specialty 

Products, Inc., 

Lawrenceville, GA.

49 CFR 173.301(f), 173.301(g) ................... To authorize the transportation in commerce of DOT specification cylinders, UN 

cylinders, tube trailers, and multi-element 

gas containers containing hydrogen chloride without pressure relief devices. 

(modes 1, 2, 3) 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES