Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

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

                    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 DOT-certified 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                           ( print page 10052)                        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, low-emission 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,                     *Low-speed 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