10050 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2001 / Notices

to ten pounds below the inflation

pressure that is necessary to support the

weight of the bus when it operates with

a full load of passengers. In addition, a

few certification labels specify an

inflation pressure that is ten to twenty

pounds below the inflation pressure that

is necessary to support the weight of the

bus when it operates at maximum

capacity. However, if the same tires are

inflated to the maximum inflation

pressure that is molded on the sidewall,

then the tires will support the vehicle’s

weight. AmTran, in effect, is asking to

be excused from preparing and sending

corrected certification labels to the

vehicles’ owners.

In addition, the information on the

certification label is required to be

specified in English and metric units.

According to AmTran, all of the

AmTran buses produced prior to

February 11, 1999, have a certification

label that correctly specifies the weight

of the vehicle without identifying it as

‘‘lbs.’’

AmTran supports its application for

inconsequential noncompliance for the

certification label by stating the

following:

• Most buses do not run at full GVWR

or full capacity.

• When buses operate at full capacity,

it is for a very short period of time.

• There have been no tire warranty

claims related to low pressure.

• Most tires are inflated by charts

used at maintenance areas and the

certification document is not used as a

guide.

• The difference between the

specified tire pressure and the required

tire pressure is not a safety issue in this

case.

In addition, AmTran supports its

application for inconsequential

noncompliance for the missing units of

‘‘lbs’’ by stating the following:

• Not aware of any problems created

by the missing unit identification.

• It is understood in the U.S. bus

industry that the GAWR and GVWR are

listed in pounds.

We have reviewed the petitioner’s

arguments. The purpose for the labeling

requirements in FMVSS No. 120 is to

provide the vehicle user with

information for the safe operation of the

vehicle. FMVSS No. 120 paragraph

S5.3.1 specifies that the certification

label on buses include the

recommended cold inflation pressure

for the tires such that the sum of the

load ratings of the tires on each axle is

appropriate for the GAWR. Part 567

specifies the content and location of the

certification label. In this case, no units

of measure were provided.

Of the 1,514 buses, our analysis

indicates that 557 have specified a tire

inflation pressure on the label that is

incorrect and may not be able to handle

the load. Under-inflation and

overloading produces structural failure

in a tire; this could cause loss of control

while the vehicle is traveling on the

highway. This presents a clear and

distinct safety hazard. However, the

remaining 957 buses, based on our

analysis of supplemental data, should

be able to handle the full occupant

capacity loads when the vehicle tires are

inflated to the recommended inflation

pressures.

In consideration of the foregoing,

NHTSA has decided that the applicant

has not met its burden of persuasion

that the noncompliance it describes is

inconsequential to safety for 557 buses.

Accordingly, in regards to the

certification label, its application is

hereby denied for 557 buses and granted

for 957 buses. In addition, the

replacement labels should contain the

correct data in both metric and English

units.

According to AmTran, the processes

have been extensively reviewed, the

causes of these noncompliances have

been isolated, and changes in the

processes have been instituted to

prevent any future occurrences. In

addition, the noncompliance is limited

to the buses addressed in this notice,

and AmTran stated that its future

products will comply with the

prescribed requirements.

The agency agrees with AmTran that

the label on these buses whose only

deficiency is the failure to provide the

marking ‘‘lbs’’ for the units, and a metric

conversion, is likely to achieve the

safety purpose of the required label. The

vehicle user will have the correct safety

information in the prescribed location

and format. Since petitioning the agency

on this subject, AmTran has corrected

its certification label process to include

the prescribed format.

In consideration of the foregoing,

NHTSA has decided that the applicant

has met its burden of persuasion that

this labeling noncompliance portion of

its petition is inconsequential to motor

vehicle safety. Accordingly, we grant its

petition on this issue.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120, 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. 01–3557 Filed 2–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–2001–8827; Notice 1]

Dan Hill & Associates, Inc.; Application

for Temporary Exemption From

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 224

We are asking for comments on the

application by Dan Hill & Associates,

Inc. (‘‘Dan Hill’’), of Norman, Oklahoma,

for an exemption of one year from Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224 Rear

Impact Protection. Dan Hill asserts that

compliance would cause substantial

economic hardship to a manufacturer

that has tried in good faith to comply

with the standard.

We are publishing this notice of

receipt of the application in accordance

with our regulations on the subject. This

action does not mean that we have made

a judgment yet about the merits of the

application.

Dan Hill has been the beneficiary of

temporary exemptions from Standard

No. 224 beginning on January 26, 1998

(see 63 FR 3784 and 64 FR 49047). The

information below is based on material

from Dan Hill’s original and renewal

applications of 1998 and 1999, and its

most recent application of 2000.

Why Dan Hill Says That it Continues To

Need an Exemption

Dan Hill manufactures and sells a

horizontal discharge trailer (‘‘Flow

Boy’’) that is used in the road

construction industry to deliver asphalt

and other road building materials to the

construction site. The Flow Boy is

designed to connect with and latch onto

various paving machines (‘‘pavers’’).

The Flow Boy, with its hydraulically

controlled horizontal discharge system,

discharges hot mix asphalt at a

controlled rate into a paver which

overlays the road surface with asphalt

material.

Standard No. 224 requires, effective

January 26, 1998, that all trailers with a

GVWR of 4536 Kg or more, including

Flow Boy trailers, be fitted with a rear

impact guard that conforms to Standard

No. 223 Rear impact guards. Dan Hill

argued that installation of the rear

impact guard will prevent the Flow Boy

from connecting to the paver. Thus,

Flow Boy trailers will no longer be

functional. Paving contractors will be

forced to use either competitors’

horizontal discharge trailers that comply

with Standard No. 224 or standard

dump body trucks or trailers which,

according to Dan Hill, have inherent

limitations and safety risks. In spite of

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