69130 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Notices

ITS AMERICA provides a forum for

national discussion and

recommendations on ITS activities

including programs, research needs,

strategic planning, standards,

international liaison, and priorities. The

charter for the utilization of ITS

AMERICA establishes this organization

as an advisory committee under the

Federal Advisory Committee Act

(FACA), 5 USC app. 2, when it provides

advice or recommendations to DOT

officials on ITS policies and programs.

(56 FR 9400, March 6, 1991).

DATES: The Coordinating Council of ITS

AMERICA will meet on Tuesday,

December 5, 2001 from 8 a.m.–Noon

(Eastern Standard time).

ADDRESSES: Wyndham Miami Beach

Resort, 4833 Collins Ave., Miami Beach,

Florida, 33140. Phone: (305) 532–3600

and Fax: (305) 538–2807.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Materials associated with this meeting

may be examined at the offices of ITS

AMERICA, 400 Virginia Avenue, SW.,

Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20024.

Persons needing further information or

to request to speak at this meeting

should contact Carren Kaston at ITS

AMERICA by telephone at (202) 484–

4669, or by FAX at (202) 484–3483. The

DOT contact is Kristy Frizzell, FHWA,

HVH–1, Washington, D.C. 20590, (202)

366–0722. Office hours are from 8:30

a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through

Friday, except for legal holidays.

(23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48)

Issued on: November 9, 2000.

Whitey Metheny,

ITS Joint Program Office.

[FR Doc. 00–29268 Filed 11–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2000–7354; Notice 2]

Honda Motor Co., Ltd.; Grant of

Application for Temporary Exemption

From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 123

We are granting the application by

Honda Motor Co. Ltd. (‘‘Honda’’), a

Japanese corporation, through American

Honda Motor Co., Inc., of Torrance,

California, for a temporary exemption of

two years from a requirement of S5.2.1

(Table 1) of Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 123 Motorcycle

Controls and Displays. The basis of the

request was that ‘‘compliance with the

standard would prevent the

manufacturer from selling a motor

vehicle with an overall safety level at

least equal to the overall safety level of

nonexempt vehicles,’’ 49 U.S.C.

30113(b)(3)(B)(iv).

On May 18, 2000, we published a

notice of receipt of the application in

accordance with the requirements of 49

U.S.C. 30113(b)(2), and asked for

comments (65 FR 31629). We received

many comments in support, as

discussed below.

Honda applied on behalf of its

NSS250 motor scooters. The scooters are

defined as ‘‘motorcycles’’ for purposes

of compliance with the Federal motor

vehicle safety standards. If a motorcycle

is produced with rear wheel brakes,

S5.2.1 of Standard No. 123 requires that

the brakes be operable through the right

foot control (the left handlebar is

permissible only for a motor driven

cycle (Item 11, Table 1), i.e., a

motorcycle with a motor that produces

5 brake horsepower or less). Honda asked that it be allowed to use

the left handlebar as the control for the

rear brakes of its NSS250, which is a

motorcycle and not a motor driven

cycle. The model features an automatic

transmission that eliminates the lefthand clutch lever as well as any left-foot

gearshift lever. This leaves the left hand

of the rider free to operate a brake lever.

In Honda’s opinion, ‘‘removal of the

left-handlebar clutch lever, left-footcontrolled gearshift lever and right-footcontrolled rear brake pedal result in

simpler operation.’’ Honda pointed out

that NHTSA exempted three other

motorcycle manufacturers from this

requirement of S5.2.1. in 1999 (Aprilia,

64 FR 44262; Vectrix, 64 FR 45585; and

Italjet, 64 FR 58127). Honda argued that the overall level of

safety of the scooters equals or exceeds

that of a motorcycle that complies with

the brake control location requirement

of Standard No. 123. Unlike the other

exempted motorcycles, the NSS250 is

equipped with a ‘‘combined brake

system’’ which ‘‘provides single-point,

front- and rear-wheel braking action.’’

The vehicle meets the braking

performance requirements ‘‘of both

FMVSS 122 and ECE78.’’ The company

submitted test results demonstrating

that the braking performance of the

NSS250 with its combined brake system

is better than that of a scooter without

the combined brake system. For the

second effectiveness test, for example,

the NSS250 stopped in shorter distances

than a Honda model equipped with a

foot brake, that is to say, from a

maximum speed of 65.4 mph in 165 feet

(compared with 178 feet), and, from 30

mph, in 38 feet (compared with 40 feet). Honda has developed the NSS250 for

the world market. In Europe, Japan, and

other Asian countries, scooters are

equipped with handlebar-mounted front

and rear brakes. Absent an exemption,

then, Honda said that it will be unable

to sell the NSS250 in the United States.

The cost to conform the NSS250 to

comply with Standard No. 123 ‘‘would

add considerable cost to the product’’

and result in a motorcycle that would

not be competitive.

Honda will not sell more than 2,500

scooters a year while an exemption is in

effect. It argued that an exemption

would be in the public interest and

consistent with the objectives of traffic

safety because ‘‘the level of safety is

equal to similar vehicles certified under

FMVSS No. 123.’’

We received approximately 40

comments, all of which urged us to

grant the application. Typical of the

comments are those from Richard A.

Smith of Orem, Utah, Brian Hotaling of

Austin, Texas, and Deb Lee of Carriere,

Mississippi. Mr. Hotaling adduces that

Honda’s tests show that its ‘‘simple yet

innovative combined braking system is

better’’ than that of a scooter without it,

and that ‘‘the NSS250 stopped in shorter

distances than a Honda model equipped

with a foot brake by a remarkable

amount.’’ Mr. Smith recommended that

‘‘this exemption should be allowed on

a permanent basis,’’ and that ‘‘given the

recent prices of gasoline in our country

and the environmental concerns over air

pollution in our cities * * * Honda

should be allowed to import more than

2500 of these vehicles.’’ Ms. Lee

recommends an amendment to Standard

No. 123, and comments that the Honda

product ‘‘could be used by many senior

citizens and Americans with

disabilities.’’

As Honda noted in its petition, we

have exempted three other motorcycle

manufacturers from S5.2.1 (Aprilia, 64

FR 44262, re-issued at 65 FR 1225;

Vectrix, 64 FR 45585; and Italjet, 64 FR

58127). We have reviewed Honda’s

brake test results demonstrating the

superiority of the NSS250 with its

combined brake system over that of a

scooter without such a system. Our

concerns about a lack of standardization

of the rear brake control for scooter-type

vehicles was addressed by Aprilia in its

petition which included a report on

‘‘Motorscooter Braking Control Study’’

which is available for examination in

Docket No. NHTSA–99–4357. This

report indicated that test subjects’ brake

reaction times using a vehicle much like

Honda’s were approximately 20%

quicker than their reaction times on the

conventional motorcycle. We

interpreted the report as indicating that

a rider’s braking response is not likely

to be degraded by the different

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Notices 69131

1BTRC is an existing carrier currently operating

in Seattle, WA. See Ballard Terminal Railroad

Company, L.L.C.—Modified Rail Certificate, STB

Finance Docket No. 33594 (STB served Feb. 26,

1999).

2After consummation of the transaction in STB

Finance Docket No. 33959, the line will be referred

to as the Meeker Southern Railroad line.

placement of brake controls, and cited it

in granting the similar petition by

Vectrix. In the present case, the number

of favorable comments appear to sustain

our previous conclusions.

With respect to the public interest and

the objectives of motor vehicle safety,

the overall level of safety, as Honda

argues, appears at least equal to that of

vehicles certified to comply with

Standard No. 123. The numerous

comments make convincing arguments

that an exemption would be in the

public interest by making available a

compact, fuel-efficient vehicle that

would not otherwise be available

without an exemption.

In consideration of the foregoing, we

hereby find that Honda has met its

burden of persuasion that, to require

compliance with Standard No. 123

would prevent the manufacturer from

selling a motor vehicle with an overall

level of safety at least equal to the

overall safety level of nonexempt

vehicles. We further find that a

temporary exemption is in the public

interest and consistent with the

objectives of motor vehicle safety.

Accordingly, Honda Motor Co. Ltd. is

hereby granted NHTSA Temporary

Exemption No. EX2000–2 from the

requirements of item 11, Column 2,

Table 1 of 49 CFR 571.123 Standard No.

123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays,

that the rear wheel brakes be operable

through the right foot control. This

exemption applies only to the NSS250,

and will expire on November 1, 2002.

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at

49 CFR 1.50)

Issued on November 8, 2000.

Sue Bailey,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–29240 Filed 11–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33959]

Ballard Terminal Railroad Company,

L.L.C. d/b/a Meeker Southern

Railroad—Acquisition and Operation

Exemption—The Burlington Northern

and Santa Fe Railway Company

Ballard Terminal Railroad Company,

L.L.C. (BTRC), a limited liability

company doing business as Meeker

Southern Railroad,1 has filed a verified

notice of exemption under 49 CFR

1150.41 to acquire from The Burlington

Northern and Santa Fe Railway

Company (BNSF) and operate BNSF’s

Meeker-McMillin Rail Line located

between Meeker, milepost 32.82, and

McMillin, milepost 28.34, in Pierce

County, WA, a distance of

approximately 4.5 miles (line).

The parties report that they intend to

close the transaction on or after the later

of November 13, 2000, or seven days

from date of filing of this notice with the

Board. The earliest the transaction can

be consummated is November 10, 2000,

the effective date of the exemption (7

days after the exemption was filed).2

If the verified notice contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio. Petitions to reopen the

proceeding to revoke the exemption

under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed

at any time. The filing of a petition to

revoke will not automatically stay the

transaction.

An original and 10 copies of all

pleadings, referring to STB Finance

Docket No. 33959, must be filed with

the Surface Transportation Board, Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925

K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, a copy of each

pleading must be served on Stephen L.

Day, Esq., Betts, Patterson & Mines, P.S.,

1215 4th Avenue, Suite 800, Seattle,

WA 98161–1090.

Board decisions and notices are

available on our website at

WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.

Decided: November 7, 2000.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–29077 Filed 11–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P