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

63914 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 25, 2000 / Notices

April 5, 1993. To date, an estimated 1680

man-hours and approximately $50,400 have

been spent on this project.

At that time, Panoz used a 5.0L Ford

Mustang GT engine and five speed

manual transmission in its car. Because

‘‘the 1995 model year and associated

emission components were revised by

Ford,’’ this caused

a delay in the implementation of the airbag

system on the Roadster due to further

research and development time requirements

and expenditure of additional monies to

evaluate the effects of these changes on the

airbag adaptation program.

Shortly before filing its application for

first renewal in 1995, Panoz learned that

Ford was replacing the 5.0L engine and

emission control system on the 1996

Mustang and other passenger cars with

a modular 4.6L engine and associated

emission components. The 1995 system

did not meet 1996 On-Board Diagnostic

emission control requirements, and

Panoz was faced with using the 1996

engine and emission control system as

a substitute. The majority of the money

and man hours at that time had been

spent on adapting an airbag system to

the 5.0L engine car, and the applicant

had to concentrate on adapting it to a

4.6L engine car. Panoz listed eight types

of modifications and testing necessary

for compliance that would cost it

$337,000 if compliance were required at

the end of a one-year period. It asked for

and received a two-year renewal of its

exemption.

However, between 1995 and 1997,

Panoz found integration of the 4.6L

engine into its existing chassis more

difficult than anticipated, primarily

because the 4.6L was 10 inches wider

than the engine it replaced. This

required a total redesign of the chassis,

requiring expenditure of ‘‘a significant

amount of resources.’’ Simultaneously,

Panoz designed the vehicle to allow for

the integration of the Ford Mustang

driver-side and passenger-side airbag

systems. Panoz described these steps in

some detail and estimates that between

May 1995 and August 1997 it spent

2200 man-hours and $66,000 on these

efforts. In the same time period, it spent

$47,000 in static and dynamic crash

testing of a 4.6L car related to airbag

system development. Panoz concluded

by describing the additional

modifications and testing required to

adapt the Ford system to its car. These

costs totaled $358,000. In 1997, the

company argued that a two-year renewal

of its exemption would provide time to

generate sufficient income

(approximately $15,000 a month

through sales of vehicles and private

funding) to fund the modifications and

testing. After August 1997, Panoz spent

an additional 1779 man hours and

$87,375 in airbag development for the

Roadster, a large portion of which was

to adapt the 1997–98 Ford Mustang

mechanical system. In September 1998,

NHTSA issued its NPRM on advanced

airbags which would have required

Panoz to begin the phase-in of the new

system as of September 1, 2002. Panoz

decided that the mechanical airbag

system it was developing could not

comply with the proposed advanced

system. It also lacked the resources to

develop two systems simultaneously, so

it turned its development efforts

towards the advanced system, which

will be in its new model, Esperante. In

November 1999, NHTSA issued a

Supplemental NPRM under which

implementation of the advanced airbag

rule would be delayed for small

manufacturers until September 1, 2005

(subsequently adopted in the final rule

of May 2000). This resulted in Panoz’s

resumption of efforts to adapt the Ford

Mustang airbag system to its Roadster.

However, with its 1999 models, Ford

had replaced the mechanical airbag

system with an electronic one, ‘‘which

dictated that Panoz would have to

conduct further crash testing in order to

properly calibrate the [Restraint Control

Module] for application on the AIV

Roadster.’’ Panoz intends to have the

electronic system adapted by the end of

the exemption it has requested. The

foregoing is a summary of Panoz’s

compliance efforts which are set forth in

detail in its application.

In sum, Panoz has been exempted

from compliance with the airbag

requirements for all passenger cars that

it manufactured between August 1,

1993, and March 1, 2000, approximately

61⁄2 years. These total 178 units.

At the time of its original petition,

Panoz’s cumulative net losses since

incorporation in 1989 were $1,265,176.

It lost an additional $249,478 in 1993,

$169,713 in 1994, $721,282 in 1995, and

$1,349,241 in 1996. Its losses continued

in 1997, 1998, and 1999, respectively

$3,253,111, $4,264,689, and $2,996,903.

Thus, Panoz’s losses for the years that

the exemption was in effect, 1993–99,

total $13,004,417.

The applicant reiterated its original

arguments that an exemption would be

in the public interest and consistent

with the objectives of traffic safety.

Specifically, The Roadster is built in the

United States and uses 100 percent U.S.

components, bought from Ford and

approximately 95 other companies (‘‘at

least 250 employees’’ of which ‘‘remain

involved in the Panoz project’’). Panoz

provides employment for 47 full time

and three part time employees. The

company now has 33 U.S. dealers. The

Roadster is said to provide the public

with a classic alternative to current

production vehicles. It is the only

vehicle that incorporates ‘‘molded

aluminum body panels for the entire

car,’’ a process which continues to be

evaluated by other manufacturers and

which ‘‘results in the reduction of

overall vehicle weight, improved fuel

efficiency, shortened tooling lead times,

and increased body strength.’’ With the

exception of S4.1.4 of Standard No. 208,

the Roadster meets all other Federal

motor vehicle safety standards.

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, Department of

Transportation, 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: November 24, 2000.

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

authority at 49 CFR 1.50. and 501.8).

Issued on October 19, 2000.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 00–27316 Filed 10–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety;

Notice of Applications for Modification

of Exemption

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: List of applications for

modification of exemptions.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

procedures governing the application

for, and the processing of, exemptions

from the Department of Transportation’s

Hazardous Materials Regulations (49

CFR part 107, subpart B), notice is

hereby given that the Office of