Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Notices 69129

Hourly period Number of

exemptions

1800 .......................................... 7

1900 .......................................... 8

2000 .......................................... 6

2100 .......................................... 26

The FAA proposes that carriers

eligible for participation in the lottery

would be those carriers that have

applications on file with the

Department, have fulfilled the

certification requirements articulated in

OST Orders 2000–4–10 and 2000–4–11

as of the date of this notice, and will

have commenced operations by January

1, 2001. Definitions for the terms

‘‘carrier,’’ ‘‘new entrant,’’ and ‘‘limited

incumbent’’ for purposes of

participation in the lottery, are proposed

as set forth in 14 CFR 93.123, and

amended by section 231 of AIR–21. The

Port Authority proposed to consider all

carriers operating under a single

designator code to be considered a

single carrier for the purposes of the

lottery. We note that the language in

AIR–21 addressing affiliated carriers

applies only in determining new entrant

status and does not include the

provision addressing service for small

hub or nonhub airports. Upon

reconsideration, the FAA is proposing

for comment that independently owned

carriers that had obtained AIR–21

certification in their own name could

participate in the lottery separately,

regardless of code-share arrangements.

The list of eligible carriers below is

based on this reconsideration. However,

comments are specifically requested on

this distinction.

The FAA further proposes that no

carrier may select more exemption times

than it operated between 0700–2159 on

January 1, 2001. The slot exemptions

reallocated by lottery would remain in

effect until September 15, 2001. The

FAA seeks comment as to whether

another date in September is more

feasible for carriers to make general

schedule changes. Carriers that are

reallocated exemption slots by lottery

should re-certify to the Department of

Transportation in accordance with the

procedures articulated in OST Orders

2000–4–10 and 2000–4–11, and provide

the Department and the FAA with the

markets to be served, the number of

exemption slots and the time of

operation. While this temporary reallocation process will be conducted

jointly with the Port Authority, the FAA

wants to make clear that this measure is

taken in response to a serious and

currently unique situation at LaGuardia

Airport under the FAA’s authority for

the efficient management of the

navigable airspace and provided for in

AIR–21.

Reallocation of Slot Exemption at

LaGuardia by Lottery

In late November or early December

2000, the FAA intends to hold a lottery

with the Port Authority to allocate

approximately 150 slot exemptions

authorized under AIR–21. The FAA

proposes the following lottery

procedure for allocation of the AIR–21

slot exemptions at LaGuardia:

1. All AIR–21 slot exemptions will be

allocated in this lottery, and all carriers

currently operating under AIR–21

exemption authority will be required to

conform their schedules to the slots

received in the lottery, effective on the

effective date of the allocation (in

January 2001).

2. To be eligible to participate in this

lottery, a carrier must have applied to

the Department of Transportation under

Orders OST 2000–4–10 or 2000–4–11,

received allocations by the FAA as of

the date of this notice, and commenced

operation by January 1, 2001. Carriers

that meet this criteria under Order

2000–4–10 and would be eligible for a

lottery of times between 0700–2159 are:

Air Tran (11 operations), American

Trans Air (8 operations), Legend, (7

operations), Midway (9 operations),

Midwest Express (8 operations), Spirit

Airlines (14 operations), Shuttle

America (14 operations), Southeast

Airlines (4) and Vanguard (4

operations). Carriers that meet the

criteria of Order 2000–4–11 for service

for small hub and nonhub airports and

would be eligible for a lottery are:

American Eagle (26 operations), Atlantic

Coast Jet (44 operations), Chautauqua

Airlines (12 operations), Colgan Air (20

operations), Commutair (10 operations),

Continental Express (22 operations),

Delta Connection (37 operations) and

US Airways Express (50 operations).

3. The slot exemption lottery will be

conducted in accordance with the

following procedures:

a. Carriers will participate in a

random drawing for selection order.

Carriers will select in that order in each

round.

b. No carrier may select more

exemption times than it operated

between 0700–2159 on January 1, 2001.

c. In the first round, only new

entrants and limited incumbent carriers

may participate. Each new entrant and

limited incumbent carrier may select up

to 4 slot exemption times, 2 arrivals and

2 departures. No more than one slot

exemption time may be selected in any

hour. In this round each carrier may

select one slot exemption time in each

of 4 hours without regard to whether a

slot is available in that hour.

d. In the second and third rounds,

only carriers providing service to small

hub and nonhub airports may

participate. Each carrier may select up

to 2 slot exemption times, one arrival

and one departure in each round.

e. Beginning with the fourth round,

all eligible carriers may participate.

Each carrier may select up to 2 of the

remaining slot exemption times, one

arrival and one departure, in each

round, until a total of 150 slot

exemption times have been selected.

f. If the last remaining slot exemption

times available do not permit a

reasonable arrival-departure

turnaround, the FAA will take requests

for trades among AIR–21 operators, or

will make an adjustment to one of the

times to assure that all slot exemption

time pairs selected provide for a viable

operation by the selecting carrier.

g. The Chief Counsel will be the final

decisionmaker concerning eligibility of

carriers to participate in the lottery.

Issued on November 9, 2000 in

Washington, DC.

James W. Whitlow,

Deputy Chief Counsel.

[FR Doc. 00–29356 Filed 11–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

Intelligent Transportation Society of

America; Public Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The Intelligent Transportation

Society of America (ITS AMERICA) will

hold a meeting of its Coordinating

Council on Tuesday, December 5, 2000.

The following designations are made for

each item: (A) is an ‘‘action’’ item; (I) is

an ‘‘information item’’; and (D) is a

‘‘discussion’’ item. The agenda includes

the following: (1) Housekeeping Items,

i.e. Introductions, Statements of

Antitrust Compliance and Conflict of

Interest, and Previous Minutes (I); (2)

Federal Report (I&D); (3) President’s

Report (I); (4) Council Membership

Issues Discussion (I/D/A); (5) Adoption

of ITS America Privacy Principles (D/

A); (6) Break (20 minutes) (A); (7)

Progress Report: Joint Task Force on ITS

Deployment Strategy (I/D); (8) Approval

of IVI Advice letter to USDOT (D/A); (9)

Progress Report: 10-Year Program Plan &

Research Agenda (I/D); (10) Closing

Housekeeping—Next meeting: TBD.

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