[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3268-3269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1354]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2000-6787; Notice 1]


Currie Technologies, Inc., Receipt of Application for Temporary 
Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 123

    Currie Technologies, Inc. (``Currie''), of Van Nuys, California, a 
Nevada Corporation, has applied for a temporary exemption of two years 
from certain requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, and of Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays. 
The basis of the request is that ``compliance would cause substantial 
economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried to comply with the 
standard in good faith,'' 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i).
    We are publishing this notice of receipt of an application in 
accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(2), and does not 
represent any judgment on the merits of the application.

Why Currie Says That it Needs a Temporary Exemption

    Since March 1, 1997, Currie has produced ``fewer than 1,000'' 
electric bicycles with a ``power assist.'' Its ``power assisted'' 
electric bicycles incorporate a ``pedal torque enable system'' which 
require that the rider pedal the bicycle in order to activate the 
motor. Because Currie's ``power assist'' will not operate in the 
absence of muscular power, a bicycle equipped with the ``power assist'' 
is not a motor vehicle subject to our regulations. Currie now intends 
to manufacture a bicycle propelled by an electric motor of less than 
\1/2\ hp which will operate in the absence of muscular power. A 
motorized bicycle that can operate in the absence of muscular power is 
a ``motor vehicle.'' As the manufacturer of a ``motor vehicle,'' Currie 
must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety 
regulations. For purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards, any two-wheeled motor vehicle is a ``motorcycle.'' 
However, some provisions of the Federal motor vehicle motorcycle safety 
standards contain lesser performance requirements for ``motor driven 
cycles.'' These are motorcycles with engines producing 5 hp or less, 
such as the Currie vehicle.
    Currie believes that compliance with portions of the Federal 
motorcycle safety standards on lighting and controls will cause it 
substantial economic hardship. It requests that it be exempted from 
providing the headlamps, taillamps, stop lamps, and license plate lamps 
required by Standard No. 108, and handlebar-located front and rear 
brake controls.

Why Currie Says That Compliance Would Cause Substantial Economic 
Hardship and it Has Tried in Good Faith To Comply With the 
Standards

    Currie's resources are limited. From its inception on February 28, 
1997 through December 31, 1998, the company had cumulative net losses 
of $703,054. The costs of tooling for the lamps needed to comply with 
Standard No. 108 are estimated to be $120,000. This, in turn, would 
require an increase in the retail cost of each vehicle that could be as 
much as $300. The vehicle currently retails for $899, and if the 
company raises the price to $1,199, ``this will result in pricing the 
product well above the $1,000 price point threshold and effectively 
nullify all future sales.'' Further, ``with the money invested in the 
company to date and the requirement for at least minimum operating 
capital, our company will go out of business unless minimum capital to 
cover operating expenses is generated through sales.'' Beginning in 
July 1998, it researched and tested off-the-shelf motorcycle and moped 
headlamps, taillamps and stop lamps at Jute Manufacturing Company in 
Taiwan. Currie found that these lamps added over 5 pounds weight, 
reducing the total range per charge (which reduces the appeal of the 
product as range per charge decreases). The batteries of the Currie 
electric bicycle carry only 250 watt-hours; the lamps tested are 
inefficient and will draw more energy from the batteries. To provide 
heavier, more efficient batteries will increase the price and reduce 
the range per charge. While the exemption is in effect, Currie will 
explore other options such as designing vehicle-specific lighting 
equipment. It estimates that it can achieve compliance by December 
2000. During the exemption period, its vehicles will be equipped with 
the following reflectors: one white in front, one red in rear, one 
white on each rim, and two yellow on each pedal.
    The company's arguments about compliance with Standard No. 123 are 
based upon its safety views. A bicycle is configured to have the lever 
controlling the rear brake on the right handlebar. To reverse this 
position creates the possibility of confusion in riders who must apply 
brakes quickly. Currie gives as an example:

    When coasting too fast down hills, the natural instinct is to 
activate the right-hand lever (rear brake) first. This prevents the 
rear end of the bicycle from cartwheeling over the front. With the 
brake reversal, the front brake is activated first, causing 
dangerous catapulting. This is a common occurrence with novice 
bicyclists. The moped brake reversal accentuates this danger, and, 
in fact, a number of accidents have occurred for this reason.

    The company does comply with the requirements of the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) for bicycles that the rear brake shall 
be activated by a control located on the right handlebar and the front 
brake activated by a control on the left handlebar.

Why Currie Says that an Exemption is Consistent With the Public 
Interest and the Objectives of Motor Vehicle Safety

    Currie submits that the electric bicycle ``is an environmentally 
friendly, zero-emission vehicle, and that mass-marketed electric 
bicycles ``will help to ease the transition from gas powered vehicles 
into the nascent electric vehicle market.''
    Because the maximum speed of the electric bicycle is 16 mph when 
driven by the motor alone, and because a standard bicycle without motor 
``can easily travel at speeds greater than 16 mph, solely under human 
input,'' Currie argues that ``this electric bicycle should not be 
required to have any greater illumination requirements than that of a 
standard bicycle.'' It believes that aftermarket bicycle lights are 
adequate. On November 10, 1999, it informed us that ``typical halogen 
bicycle lights are added for night operation as for regular bicycles.''
    In addition to the arguments regarding its compliance with the 
brake control specifications of the CPSC, as discussed above, Currie is 
concerned that, as its electric bicycle ``looks, feels, and rides like 
a standard bicycle,'' a rider familiar with bicycle braking systems 
might make a mistake were the electric bicycle

[[Page 3269]]

to conform with Standard No. 123's opposite specifications, and 
believes that an exemption from these requirements ``is more consistent 
* * * than maintaining the control location and operation * * *.''

An Issue on Which We Request Specific Comment

    It has come to our attention that the EV Global, an electric 
bicycle, is advertised as being equipped with a tail lamp and a 
headlamp, both represented as complying with the motorcycle 
requirements of Standard No. 108. We asked Currie to explain why it was 
requesting an exemption for these items of lighting equipment. Currie 
replied that the EV Global lamps ``are specially developed high 
intensity lamps that are proprietary to their company.'' Although the 
lamps may comply with Standard No. 108, ``the tooling and production of 
these lamps is expensive and will cause substantial economic 
hardship.'' By contrast, the Currie product ``is much lighter and much 
less expensive (it uses a regular bicycle frame), it meets a different 
segment of the market and is a true electric bicycle.''
    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. The Docket Room is open from 10 a.m. until 5 p.m. 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: February 22, 2000.

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. and 
501.8)

    Issued on January 13, 2000.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Acting Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 00-1354 Filed 1-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLIING CODE 4910-59-P