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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2001 / Notices 10053

authority indicated below. Comment

closing date: March 15, 2001.

(49 U.S.C. 301118, 301120; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on: February 2, 2001.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 01–3558 Filed 2–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2001–8808, Notice 1]

Philips Lighting Company Receipt of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

Philips Lighting Company, Somerset,

New Jersey, has determined that certain

H3–55W replaceable light sources it

manufactured do not have the ‘‘DOT’’

marking required under Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.

108, ‘‘Lamps, Reflective Devices, and

Associated Equipment.’’ The total

number of light sources sold without

this marking from January 1998 to

December 1999 was 67,299.

This notice of receipt of an

application 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 application.

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), Philips Lighting Company has

petitioned for a determination that its

failure to mark light sources with

‘‘DOT’’ is inconsequential to motor

vehicle safety and has filed an

appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR

Part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance

Reports.’’

Philips Lighting Company has

indicated that the subject replaceable

light source, with the exception of the

absence of the ‘‘DOT’’ marking, fully

complies with all the performance and

design requirements of FMVSS No. 108

and does not constitute any risk to

motor vehicle safety and has submitted

test results 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

authority indicated below. Comment

closing date: March 15, 2001.

(49 U.S.C. 301118, 301120; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on: February 8, 2001.

Noble N. Bowie,

Acting Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 01–3630 Filed 2–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety;

Notice of Delays in Processing of

Exemption Applications

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: List of applications delayed

more than 180 days.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5117(c), RSPA

is publishing the following list of

exemption applications that have been

in process for 180 days or more. The

reason(s) for delay and the expected

completion date for action on each

application is provided in association

with each identified application.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J.

Suzanne Hedgepeth, Director, Office of

Hazardous Materials, Exemptions and

Approvals, Research and Special

Programs Administration, U.S.

Department of Transportation, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590–0001, (202) 366–4535.

Key to ‘‘Reasons for Delay’’

1. Awaiting additional information

from applicant.

2. Extensive public comment under

review.

3. Application is technically complex

and is of significant impact or

precedent-setting and requires extensive

analysis.

4. Staff review delayed by other

priority issues or volume of exemption

applications.

Meaning of Application Number

Suffixes

N—New application.

M—Modification request.

PM—Party to application with

modification request.

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 6,

2001.

J. Suzanne Hedgepeth,

Director, Office of Hazardous Materials,

Exemptions and Approvals.

Application No. Applicant Reason for

delay

Estimated date

of completion

New Exemption Applications

11862–N ................. The BOC Group, Murray Hill, NJ ............................................................................................ 4 03/30/2001

11927–N ................. Alaska Marine Lines, Inc., Seattle, WA .................................................................................. 4 03/30/2001

12142–N ................. Aristech Chemical Corp., Pittsburgh, PA ................................................................................ 4 03/30/2001

12158–N ................. Hickson Corporation, Conley, GA ........................................................................................... 4 03/30/2001

12181–N ................. Aristech, Pittsburgh, PA .......................................................................................................... 4 03/30/2001

12248–N ................. Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp., High Point, NC ................................................................... 4 03/30/2001

12290–N ................. Savage Industries, Inc., Pottstown, PA .................................................................................. 4 03/30/2001

12307–N ................. Kern County Dept. of Weights & Measures, Bakersfield, CA ................................................ 4 03/30/2001

12339–N ................. BOC Gases, Murray Hill, NJ ................................................................................................... 4 03/30/2001

12353–N ................. Monson Companies, South Portland, ME .............................................................................. 4 03/30/2001

12355–N ................. Union Tank Car Company, East Chicago, IN ........................................................................ 4 03/30/2001

12381–N ................. Ideal Chemical & Supply Co., Memphis, TN .......................................................................... 4 03/30/2001