63912 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 25, 2000 / Notices

Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 109 New

Pneumatic Tires, 113 Hood Latch

Systems, 116 Brake Fluid, 124

Accelerator Control Systems, 202 Head

Restraints, 204 Steering Control

Rearward Displacement, 205 Glazing

Materials, 207 Seating Systems, 209

Seat Belt Assemblies, 210 Seat Belt

Assembly Anchorages, 212 Windshield

Retention, 214 Side Impact Protection,

216 Roof Crush Resistance, 219

Windshield Zone Intrusion, and 302

Flammability of Interior Materials.

Additionally, the petitioner states that

non-U.S. certified 2000 BMW 3 Series

passenger cars comply with the Bumper

Standard found in 49 CFR part 581.

Petitioner also contends that the

vehicles are capable of being readily

altered to meet the following standards,

in the manner indicated:

Standard No. 101 Controls and

Displays: (a) Substitution of a lens

marked ‘‘Brake’’ for a lens with a

noncomplying symbol on the brake

failure indicator lamp; (b) installation of

a seat belt warning lamp that displays

the appropriate symbol; (c) recalibration

of the speedometer/odometer from

kilometers to miles per hour.

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective

Devices and Associated Equipment: (a)

Installation of U.S.-model headlamp

assemblies which incorporate

headlamps with DOT markings; (b)

installation of U.S.-model front and rear

sidemarker/reflector assemblies; (c)

installation of U.S.-model tail-lamp

assemblies.

Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and

Rims: Installation of a tire information

placard.

Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirror:

Replacement of the passenger side

rearview mirror with a U.S.-model

component.

Standard No. 114 Theft Protection:

Installation of a warning buzzer

microswitch in the steering lock

assembly and a warning buzzer.

Standard No. 118 Power Window

Systems: Rewiring of the power window

system so that the window transport

mechanism is inoperative when the

ignition is switched off.

Standard No. 201 Occupant

Protection in Interior Impact: Inspection

of all components subject to the upper

interior head impact requirements and

replacements of those that are not

identical to components found on U.S.-

certified models.

Standard No. 206 Door Locks and

Door Retention Components:

Replacement of the rear door locks and

rear door lock buttons with U.S.-model

components.

Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash

Protection: (a) Installation of a U.S.-

model seat belt in the driver’s seating

position or a belt webbing actuated

microswitch inside the driver’s seat belt

retractor; (b) installation of an ignition

switch actuated seat belt warning lamp

and buzzer; (c) replacement of the

driver’s and passenger’s side air bags

and knee bolsters with U.S.-model

components if the vehicle is not already

so equipped. The petitioner states that

the vehicles are equipped with

combination lap and shoulder restraints

which adjust by means of an automatic

retractor and release by means of a

single push button in both front

designated seating positions, with

combination lap and shoulder restraints

which release by means of a single push

button in both rear outboard designated

seating positions, and with a lap belt in

the rear center designated seating

position.

Standard No. 301 Fuel System

Integrity: Installation of a rollover valve

in the fuel tank vent line.

The petitioner also states that a

vehicle identification number plate

must be affixed to the vehicle to meet

the requirements of 49 CFR part 565.

Additionally, the petitioner states that

non-U.S. certified 2000 BMW 3 Series

passenger cars will be inspected prior to

importation to ensure that they are

equipped to comply with the Theft

Prevention Standard found in 49 CFR

part 541 and that a U.S.-model anti-theft

device will be installed on vehicles that

are not already so equipped.

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the petition

described above. Comments should refer

to the docket number and be submitted

to: Docket Management, Room PL–401,

400 Seventh St., 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 closing date

indicated above 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 petition

will be published in the Federal

Register pursuant to the authority

indicated below.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and

(b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority

at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

Issued on: October 18, 2000.

Marilynne Jacobs,

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

[FR Doc. 00–27331 Filed 10–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2000–8090; Notice 1]

Honda Motor Company, Ltd.; Receipt

of Application for Temporary

Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 122

American Honda Motor Co., Inc., of

Torrance, California (‘‘Honda’’), on

behalf of Honda Motor Company, Ltd.,

of Japan, has applied for a temporary

exemption from the fade and water

recovery requirements of Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 122

Motorcycle Brake Systems. The basis of

the application is that an exemption

would make easier the development or

field evaluation of a new motor vehicle

safety feature providing a safety level at

least equal to the safety level of the

standard.

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.

Honda seeks an exemption of one year

for its 2001 CBR1100XX motorcycle

‘‘from the requirement of the minimum

hand-lever force of five pounds in the

base line check for the fade and water

recovery tests.’’ Honda has previously

received exemptions totaling three years

from this requirement for the 1998–2000

model year CBR1100XX (See Docket No.

93–47). The brake system of the 2001

model is said to be identical to the

system on vehicles previously

exempted. In 1997, Honda filed a

petition for rulemaking to amend

Standard No. 122 to accommodate the

braking system of the CBR1100XX.

NHTSA granted the petition and

published a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking on November 17, 1999 (64

FR 62622); however, a final rule had not

been issued as of September 1, 2000,

when its exemption expired.

Honda has been evaluating the

marketability of a motorcycle brake

system setting which is currently

applied to the model sold in Europe,

and has sold 3,600 exempted

motorcycles as of the date of its

application. The difference in setting is

limited to a softer master cylinder return

spring in the European version. As

Honda said in its initial application in

1997, using the softer spring results in

a ‘‘more predictable (linear) feeling

during initial brake lever application.’’

Although ‘‘the change allows a more

predictable rise in brake gain, the on-set

of braking occurs at lever forces slightly

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 25, 2000 / Notices 63913

below the five pound minimum’’

specified in Standard No. 122. If on-set

of braking is delayed until the five

pound minimum is reached, a feeling

results that the brakes come on

suddenly or unpredictably. Honda

considers that motorcycle brake systems

have continued to evolve and improve

since Standard No. 122 was adopted in

1972, and that one area of improvement

is brake lever force which has gradually

been reduced. However, the five-pound

minimum specification ‘‘is preventing

further development and improvement’’

of brake system characteristics. Honda

reports that many who try the system

‘‘feel that they have more control with

independent front and rear brake

systems,’’ and that ‘‘The European

version setting has shown greater

consumer acceptance.’’

The CBR1100XX is equipped with

Honda’s Linked Brake System (LBS)

which is designed to engage both front

and rear brakes when either the front

brake lever or the rear brake pedal is

used. The LBS differs from other

integrated systems in that it allows the

rider to choose which wheel gets the

majority of braking force, depending on

which brake control the rider uses.

According to Honda, the overall

braking performance remains

unchanged from a conforming

motorcycle and from Honda cycles

previously exempted. If the CBR1100XX

is exempted it will meet ‘‘the stopping

distance requirement but at lever forces

slightly below the minimum.’’

While Honda’s application did not

cite applicable sections of Standard No.

122, its previous applications asked for

relief from the first sentence of S6.10

Brake application forces, which reads:

Except for the requirements of the fifth

recovery stop in S5.4.3 and S5.7.2 (S7.6.3

and S7.10.2) the hand lever force is not less

than five and not more than 55 pounds and

the foot pedal force is not less than 10 and

not more than 90 pounds.

However, NHTSA determined that

Honda required relief from different

provisions of Standard No. 122,

although S6.10 related to them.

Paragraph S6 only sets forth the test

conditions under which a motorcycle

must meet the performance

requirements of S5. A motorcycle

manufacturer certifies compliance with

the performance requirements of S5 on

the basis of tests conducted according to

the conditions of S6 and in the manner

specified by S7. In short, NHTSA

provided relief from the performance

requirements of S5 that are based upon

the lever actuation force test conditions

of S6.10 as used in the test procedures

of S7.

These relate to the baseline checks

under which performance is judged for

the service brake system fade and fade

recovery tests (S5.4), and for the water

recovery tests (S5.7). According to the

test procedures of S7, the baseline check

stops for fade (S7.6.1) and water

recovery (S7.10.1) are to be made at 10

to 11 feet per second per second (fpsps)

per stop. The fade recovery test (S7.6.3)

also specifies stops at 10 to 11 fpsps.

Test data submitted by Honda with its

1997 application, and which it has

incorporated by reference in its 2000

application, show that, using a hand

lever force of 2.3 kg (5.1 pounds), the

deceleration for these stops is 3.05 to

3.35 meters per second per second, or

10.0 to 11.0 fpsps. This does not mean

that Honda cannot comply under the

strict parameters of the standard, but the

system is designed for responsive

performance when a hand lever force of

less than five pounds is used. For these

reasons, NHTSA interprets Honda’s

application as requesting relief from

S5.4.2, S5.4.3, and S5.7.2.

Honda argues that granting an

exemption would be in the public

interest and consistent with objectives

of traffic safety because it

* * * should improve a rider’s ability to

precisely modulate the brake force at lowlevel brake lever input forces.

Improving the predictability, even at very

low-level brake lever input, increases the

rider’s confidence in the motorcycle’s brake

system. We feel that improvements in

braking, even those of an incremental nature,

are in the public’s interest and consistent

with the objectives of the National Traffic

and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

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, s40

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: November 24, 2000.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50. and 501.8.

Issued on October 12, 2000.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 00–26817 Filed 10–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–2000–8133]

Panoz Auto Development Company;

Application for Temporary Exemption

From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 208

Panoz Auto Development Company of

Hoschton, Georgia, has applied for a

temporary exemption from paragraph

S4.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash

Protection. The basis of the application

is that compliance will cause substantial

economic hardship to a manufacturer

that has tried to comply with the

standard in good faith.

This notice of receipt of an

application for renewal 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.

Panoz received NHTSA Exemption

No. 93–5 from S4.1.4 of Standard No.

208, an exemption for two years which

was initially scheduled to expire August

1, 1995 (58 FR 43007). It applied for,

and received, two two-year renewals of

this exemption (61 FR 2866; 63 FR

16856), the last of which expired March

1, 2000. Panoz now seeks a new

exemption from S4.1.4 on hardship

grounds, that would expire March 31,

2003. This exemption would apply to

the Roadster but not to the company’s

other product, Esperante, which has

been designed during the term of the

last exemption to comply with S4.1.4.

Panoz’s original exemption was

granted pursuant to the representation

that its Roadster would be equipped

with a Ford-supplied driver and

passenger airbag system, and would

comply with Standard No. 208 by April

5, 1995, after estimated expenditures of

$472,000. As of the time of its

application, April 1993, the company

had expended 750 man hours and

$15,000 on the project.

According to its 1995 application for

renewal,

Panoz has continued the process of

researching and developing the installation

of a driver and passenger side airbag system

on the Roadster since the original exemption

petition was submitted to NHTSA on