[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 12 (Thursday, January 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4894-4896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1526]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-99-6324; Notice 2]


EMB Incorporated; Grant of Application for Temporary Exemption 
From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 120

    This notice grants the application by EMB Incorporated (``EMB'') of 
Sebastopol, California, for a 2-year exemption from portions of Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Nos. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and 
Associated Equipment, and 120 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor 
Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The company does business as 
Electric Motorbike, Inc., and has petitioned on behalf of its Lectra 
VR24 motorcycle. In the opinion of the company, a temporary 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'' (49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iii)).
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published on July 17, 2000, 
and an opportunity afforded for comment (65 FR 44092).
    The discussion that follows is based on information contained in 
EMB's application.
    Why EMB needs a temporary exemption. The company is developing

[[Page 4895]]

zero-emission (electric battery-powered) vehicles. Due to a lack of 
readily-available components for these vehicles needed to comply with 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 120, as explained 
below, EMB must petition for an exemption from portions of them, until 
July 1, 2002, as explained below.
    EMB's arguments why an exemption would facilitate the development 
and field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle and would not 
unreasonably degrade the safety of that vehicle. In order to make the 
company's products available for wider use, EMB believes that a test 
and development period is necessary to optimize product features and 
functions. During the development stage, it is likely that several 
design changes will be made ``to optimize the product for acceptance by 
the wider public.''
    It is important to place a limited number of the product in service 
in order to gain insights into the features, functions and operating 
characteristics of the product.
    In order to do so, the petitioner requested the following temporary 
exemptions:

1. Standard No. 108

    EMB utilizes a 24-volt lighting system which presently creates an 
incompatibility with available lighting equipment, necessitating a 
temporary exemption from three requirements of Standard No. 108.
    Table IV of Standard No. 108 requires motorcycle turn signal lamps 
to meet the applicable requirements of SAE Standard J588NOV8 Turn 
Signal Lamps. However, section 5.1.1.7 of Standard No. 108 provides 
that ``a motorcycle turn signal lamp need meet only one-half of the 
minimum photometric values specified in Table 1 and Table 3'' of SAE 
J588NOV84. EMB stated that ``turn signals which operate at this voltage 
are difficult to locate.'' However, it has found a supplier in Spain 
``which offers European-compliant turn signals for 24-volt operation.'' 
The turn signal unit ``meets European requirements 50R E9.'' EMB 
believes that the European standard is equivalent to that of section 
5.1.1.7, e.g., that an exemption would not unduly degrade the safety of 
the vehicle.
    Table III of Standard No. 108 requires motorcycles to be equipped 
with turn signal lamps and a turn signal operating unit. Section 5.5.6 
requires all vehicles equipped with a turn signal operating unit to 
have also an illuminated pilot indicator, which will inform the 
operator when one or more turn signal lamps fails to operate. However, 
no indication is required if a variable-load turn signal flasher has 
been installed on a motor vehicle type specified in section 5.5.6. A 
motorcycle is not one of the vehicle types specified, and the Lectra 
VR24 incorporates a variable load flasher. As noted above, the company 
uses a 24-volt DC power source for turn signal lamps. Outage indication 
is not presently available in 24 volt DC flasher units, therefore, the 
turn signal indicator on the dashboard will not indicate a failed lamp.
    EMB argued that the open nature of the motorcycle makes it ``easy 
for an operator to check for proper operation of all lights and signals 
* * .*''
    EMB also sought exemption from certain portions of Section 7.9 
which specifies headlighting requirements for motorcycles. In pertinent 
part, EMB wishes to meet the photometric specifications of Figure 32. 
At the present time, motorcycle headlamps are not available in 24-volt 
versions, and the company has chosen ``a military vehicle headlamp'' 
manufactured by ``Wagner Corporation.'' This headlamp ``does meet 
requirements for passenger car headlighting systems.'' The upper beam 
of the headlamp meets all requirements for motorcycle headlamp upper 
beams, and complies with all lower beam test points as well, with the 
exception of Test Point 2D-3L, where there is a shortfall of 7 percent.
    EMB argued that the shortfall does not unreasonably degrade safety 
because the Lectra VR24 is designed for a cruising speed of 30 mph and 
the headlamp does meet requirements for this equipment on motor driven 
cycles.
    Finally, the lens of the headlamp will not be marked ``motorcycle'' 
as required by Section 7.9.5 for a headlamp of the type intended to be 
used.
    During the exemption period, EMB plans to develop a lighting system 
that fully complies with Standard No. 108.

2. Standard No. 120

    Section 5.2 Rim marking of Standard No. 120 requires, in pertinent 
part, that each rim be embossed or debossed with certain specified 
information. The wheel that EMB has selected was not embossed with the 
information at time of manufacture but has been subsequently stamped 
with indelible ink. All the information is present and in the required 
location. These wheels meet ISO 8644, ISO 8645, and TUV specifications. 
EMB will work with suppliers to ensure that future rims are properly 
marked.
    EMB's arguments why an exemption would be consistent with the 
public interest and objectives of motor vehicle safety. EMB ``is 
developing zero-emission vehicles which are consistent with the goals 
and desires of society for a cleaner and quieter environment, and 
reduced reliance on fossil fuels.''
    Even with the exemptions requested, EMB argued that the Lectra VR24 
exhibits an overall level of safety equivalent to that prescribed by 
the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Agency Response and Decision

    We received no public comments on the application.
    EMB is eligible for a temporary exemption on the basis on which it 
has applied because it intends to produce a zero-emission vehicle. The 
manufacture of zero-emission vehicles is in the public interest, not 
only for California where EMB is located but also for the rest of the 
country as well.
    In order to grant EMB's application, we must also make findings 
that an exemption would not unreasonably lower the safety of the Lectra 
VR24 motorcycle, and that an exemption would be consistent with the 
objectives of traffic safety.
    Unlike other motorcycles, EMB has designed the Lectra VS24 with a 
24-volt lighting system. The company does not know whether the turn 
signal system will comply with the optional performance allowed by 
Section 5.1.1.7, but has found that the unit will meet an applicable 
European requirement, which it believes is equivalent to the 
performance allowed by Section 5.1.1.7. Does NHTSA, as opposed to the 
petitioner, believe that it is equivalent, and if so, on what objective 
basis do we form that belief? Pls look at Appendix B of 553. It 
addresses how the agency makes equivalency determinations. Pls note 
that it requires a degree of rigor in making such determinations. It 
would seem, therefore, that the Lectra VS24 will have the equivalent of 
a complying turn signal system, and, if it does not, that it will be 
sufficiently close to the requirements of Standard No. 108 that the 
level of safety would not be ``unreasonably'' lower. On what objective 
basis do we conclude that it will be sufficiently close?
    Standard No. 108 does not require that a turn signal pilot 
indicator be provided on vehicles other than motorcycles when the 
flasher is a variable-load type. The Lectra VS24 uses a variable load 
turn signal flasher, and no indicator has been provided. It argued that 
the open nature of the motorcycle makes it easy for an operator to 
check the proper operation of the signals. Variable load flashers are 
intended to accommodate vehicles larger than motorcycles that haul 
other vehicles on which turn signal systems

[[Page 4896]]

are installed. Motorcycles were omitted from the exclusion, not for 
safety reasons, but because there was no reason to include them. We 
agree with EMB that an operator will have an actual visual indication 
if the Lectra VS24's system is not working. We find no safety impact 
under these circumstances.
    The headlamp EMB has chosen is one for military vehicles. It fails 
to meet one photometric test point, with a shortfall of 7 percent. In 
addition, the lens is not marked ``motorcycle.'' EMB argues that this 
does not unreasonably degrade safety because the Lectra VS24 is 
designed for a cruising speed of 30 mph and its headlamp will meet the 
requirement for headlamps on motor driven cycles.
    We do not find this argument appropriate. The exceptions that 
Standard No. 108 makes for lighting equipment on motor driven cycles 
with a maximum speed of 30 mph are only for turn signals and stop lamps 
(see section 5.1.1.21 and section 5.1.1.22). While a shortfall of 7 per 
cent is a failure, it occurs at only one test point on the lower beam. 
Even if this is assumed to represent a lowering of the safety of the 
vehicle, the effect would be minimal and not ``unreasonable.'' The 
presence of the word ``motorcycle'' on the headlamp lens is intended to 
advise prospective purchasers of replacement headlamps that the 
headlamp has not been designed for use on vehicles other than 
motorcycles. Since the petition has not been filed by the manufacturer 
of the headlamp and does not relate to the aftermarket, the 
noncompliance is of a technical nature only.
    With respect to Standard No. 120, the required rim markings are 
present, but they have been stamped in indelible ink rather than being 
embossed or debossed. While the intent of the standard is to provide 
permanent marking for the rims, stamping in indelible ink ought to be 
an acceptable equivalent. Does that mean we would grant an 
inconsequentiality request for rims marked with ink instead of embossed 
or debossed? We note that future rims will be properly marked.
    The exemptions from these requirements are minor, and hence, 
compatible with the safety mission of the agency.
    On the basis of the foregoing, we find that a temporary exemption 
would make the development and field evaluation of a low-emission motor 
vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the safety level of 
that vehicle. We also find that a temporary exemption would be in the 
public interest and consistent with the objectives of motor vehicle 
safety. Accordingly, EMB Incorporated is granted NHTSA Temporary 
Exemption No. EX2000-4 from section 5.1.1.7 and section 7.9 of 49 CFR 
571.108 Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated 
Equipment, and from that portion of section 5.2 of 49 CFR 571.120 
Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than 
Passenger Cars which requires marking ``in lettering not less than 3 
millimeters high, impressed to a depth or, at the option of the 
manufacturer, embossed to e height of not less than 0.125 
millimeters.'' The exemption shall expire July 1, 2002.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 
1.50 and 501.4.

    Issued on: January 11, 2001.
Rosalyn G. Millman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 01-1526 Filed 1-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-U