Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2001 / Notices 10051

exemptions totaling three years, Dan

Hill avers that it has been unable to

engineer its trailers to conform and

needs a further year in which to do so.

We discuss below its efforts to conform

in greater detail.

Dan Hill’s Reasons Why it Believes

That Compliance Would Cause it

Substantial Economic Hardship and

That it Has Tried in Good Faith To

Comply With Standard No. 224

Dan Hill is a small volume

manufacturer. Its total production in the

12-month period preceding its latest

petition was 151 units. In the absence of

a further exemption, Dan Hill asserts

that approximately 70 percent of its

work force would have to be laid off. If

the exemption were not renewed, Dan

Hill’s gross sales would decrease by

$8,313,337 in 2001. Its cumulative net

income after taxes for the fiscal years

1998, 1999, and 2000 was $454,556, but

net income has declined in 2000 and

1999 from the year before. It projects a

net loss of $291,947 for fiscal year 2001.

The Federal Register notices cited

above contain Dan Hill’s arguments of

its previous good faith efforts to

conform with Standard No. 224 and

form the basis of our previous grants of

Dan Hill’s petitions. Dan Hill originally

asked for a year’s exemption in order to

explore the feasibility of a rear impact

guard that would allow the Flow Boy

trailer to connect to a conventional

paver. It concentrated its efforts between

1998 and 1999 in investigating the

feasibility of a retractable rear impact

guard, which would enable Flow Boys

to continue to connect to pavers. The

company has examined the various

alternatives: installation of a fixed rear

impact guard, redesign of pavers,

installation of a removable rear impact

guard, installation of a retractable rear

impact guard, and installation of a

‘‘swing-up’’ style tailgate with an

attached bumper. Its latest efforts to

conform, from September 1999 until

December 2000, involve the design of a

swing-in retractable rear impact guard.

A review of its design, by Tech, Inc.,

shows that this, too, is not feasible.

Among other things, Tech, Inc., is

concerned that ‘‘the tailgate, hinges, and

air cylinders will not meet the criteria

of the Standard 224-plasticity

requirement,’’ and that ‘‘the bumper is

a potential safety hazard’’ because if the

gate were raised and ‘‘a flagman or a

trailer stager is in between the paver and

the bumper while the gate and bumper

is rising, the bumper could cause

serious injury or death.’’ A copy of Tech

Inc.’s report has been filed in the docket

as part of Dan Hill’s petition. The report

also indicates that the costs associated

with this design may be cost prohibitive

‘‘when trying to win business in a

highly competitive, yet narrow

marketplace.’’

Dan Hill’s Reasons Why it Believes

That a Temporary Exemption Would Be

in the Public Interest and Consistent

With Objectives of Motor Vehicle Safety

Dan Hill believes that an exemption

would be in the public interest and

consistent with traffic safety objectives

because, without an exemption, ‘‘within

a short time, production of the trailer

will cease entirely. Jobs will be lost and

a major employer in McClain County

will be lost. This would mean a

significant loss to many people in the

state, including shareholders, lenders,

employees, families, and other

stakeholders.’’ Dan Hill’s production

represents less than .05% of trailers

manufactured. The amount of time

actually spent on the road is limited

because of the need to move the asphalt

to the job site before it hardens.

Nevertheless, Dan Hill has taken recent

efforts to enhance the conspicuity of

Flow Boy trailers by: 1. adding ‘‘High

intensity flashing safety lights; 2.

Doubling the legally required amount of

conspicuity taping at the rear of the

trailer; 3. [adding] Safety signage; 4.

[adding] Red clearance lights that

normally emit light in twilight or nighttime conditions; and 5. Installation of a

rear under-ride protection assembly 28′′

above the ground and 60′′ in width.’’

Finally, the location of the rear tires is

such that the tires act as a buffer ‘‘and

reduce the likelihood of impact with the

semi-trailer and the vehicle’s

windshield or interior of the vehicle

significantly.’’

How You May Comment on Dan Hill’s

Application

If you would like to comment on Dan

Hill’s application, please do so in

writing, in duplicate, referring to the

docket and notice number, and mail to:

Docket Management, National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, room PL–

401, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590.

We shall consider all comments

received before the close of business on

the date indicated below. Comments are

available for examination in the docket

in room PL–401 both before and after

that date, between the hours of 10 a.m.

and 5 p.m. To the extent possible, we

also consider comments filed after the

closing date. We will publish our

decision on the application, pursuant to

the authority indicated below.

Comment closing date: March 5, 2001.

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

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.4.

Issued on February 8, 2001.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 01–3663 Filed 2–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2001–8809; Notice 1]

EGO Vehicles Inc.; Receipt of

Application for Temporary Exemption

From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards Nos. 119 and 120

EGO Vehicles Inc. (‘‘Ego’’), a Delaware

corporation located in Fairhope,

Alabama, through counsel in San

Francisco, California, has applied for a

temporary exemption of its ‘‘eGO’’

motor driven cycle from Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 119, New

Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other

Than Passenger Cars, and No. 120, Tire

Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles

Other Than Passenger Cars. The basis of

the application is 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.

This notice of receipt of an

application is published in accordance

with the requirements of 49 U.S.C.

30113(b)(2) and does not represent any

judgment of the agency on the merits of

the application.

EGO seeks an exemption of two years

from the requirements of Standards Nos.

119 and 120. Standard No. 119

establishes performance and endurance,

marking, and treadwear indicators for

motorcycle tires. Standard No. 120

establishes requirements for DOTcertified rims of certain sizes to ensure

compatibility with DOT-certified tires of

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

10052 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2001 / Notices

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).

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the application

described above. Comments should refer

to the docket number and the notice

number, and be submitted to: Docket

Management, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590. It is requested but not required

that 10 copies be submitted.

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated below will be

considered, and will be available for

examination in the docket at the above

address both before and after that date.

To the extent possible, comments filed

after the closing date will also be

considered. Notice of final action on the

application will be published in the

Federal Register pursuant to the

authority indicated below. Comment

closing date: March 15, 2001.

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

49 CFR 1.50. and 501.8)

Issued on February 8, 2001.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 01–3664 Filed 2–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2000–7705, Notice 1]

Receipt of Applications for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

The following companies, Osram

Sylvania Products, Inc., (Osram); Subaru

of America, Inc., (Subaru); Koito

Manufacturing Co., LTD. (Koito); North

American Lighting, Inc. (NAL); Stanley

Electric Co., LTD, (Stanley); and General

Electric Company (GE) have determined

that certain H1 replaceable light sources

they manufactured or used in lamp

assemblies did not have the ‘‘DOT’’

marking required under Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.

108, ‘‘Lamps, Reflective Devices, and

Associated Equipment.’’

This notice of receipt of these

applications is published under 49

U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not

represent any agency decision or other

exercise of judgment concerning the

merits of the applications.

Under the requirements of S7.7(a) of

FMVSS No. 108, each replaceable light

source shall be marked with the symbol

‘‘DOT.’’

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and

30120(h), the above companies have

petitioned for a determination that their

failure to mark light sources with

‘‘DOT’’ is inconsequential to motor

vehicle safety and have filed

appropriate reports pursuant to 49 CFR

part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance

Reports.’’

Osram produced 841,283 H1

replaceable light sources without the

required ‘‘DOT ‘‘ marking. In its part

573 report, Osram stated that it was not

possible to determine exactly how many

light sources were used in headlamp

assemblies as opposed to those which

were used in fog lamp assemblies.

Between February 1999 and January

2000, NAL used 118,756 of these Osram

replaceable light sources in headlamp

assemblies. Subaru installed 110,784 of

these NAL headlamp assemblies in

model year 2000 Legacy vehicles from

February 1999 through February 2000.

Stanley used 30,426 of the Osram

replaceable light sources in headlamp

assemblies intended for Honda Preludes

produced between October 22, 1998 and

January 27, 2000. Koito used 12,340 of

the Osram replaceable light sources in

headlamp assemblies it manufactured

between June 1999 and January 2000.

A separate group of replaceable light

sources with the same noncompliance

was manufactured by GE. GE produced

2,490 of these between April 1, 1999

and March 23, 2000. The GE replaceable

light sources are included in this notice

for simplicity because the issue is

identical.

All of the petitioners have indicated

that the subject replaceable light

sources, with the exception of the

absence of the ‘‘DOT’’ marking, fully

comply with all the performance and

design requirements of FMVSS No. 108

and do not constitute any risk to motor

vehicle safety. Osram has submitted

confidential test data to show this.

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments on the application described

above. Comments should refer to the

docket number and be submitted to:

U.S. Department of Transportation,

Docket Management, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC,

20590. It is requested that two copies be

submitted.

All comments received before the

close of business on the closing date

indicated below will be considered. The

application and supporting materials,

and all comments received after the

closing date, will also be filed and will

be considered to the extent possible.

When the application is granted or

denied, the notice will be published in

the Federal Register pursuant to the