Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

55076 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No.

183 / Monday, September 22, 2003 / Notices

and recommendations to the Director, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The following is a brief overview of
NPS, and to the Administrator, FAA, on the application.
the implementation of Public Law 106– Federal Aviation Administration Total excess PFC revenue: $36,163
181, on quiet aircraft technology, on Brief description of proposed projects:
Notice of Intent To Rule on Application Runway safety area modifications and
other measures that might accommodate
03–04–C–00–YNG To Impose and Use terminal sanitary sewer, passenger
interests to visitors to national parks,
Excess Revenue From a Passenger facility charge administration.
and, at the request of the Director and Facility Charge (PFC) at Youngstown- Any person may inspect the
Administrator, on safety, Warren Regional Airport, Youngstown, application in person at the FAA office
environmental, and other issues related Ohio listed above under FOR FURTHER
to commercial air tour operations over INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, any
national parks or tribal lands. AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT. person may, upon request, inspect the
On March 12, 2001, the FAA and NPS application, notice and other documents
ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on
announced the establishment of the germane to the application in person at
application. the Western Reserve Port Authority.
NPOAG (48 FR 14429). Current
members of the NPOAG are Heidi SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and Issued in Des Plains, Illinois, on September
Williams (general aviation), David invites public comment on the 11, 2003.
Kennedy, Richard Larew, and Alan application to impose and use the Barbara J. Jordan,
Stephens (commercial air tour excess revenue from a PFC at Acting Manager, Planning and Programming
operations), Chip Dennerlein, Charles Younstown-Warren Regional Airport Branch, Airports Division, Great Lakes
Maynard, Steve Bosak, and Susan Gunn under the provisions of the 49 U.S.C. Region.
(environmental interests), and Germaine 40117 and part 158 of the Federal [FR Doc. 03–24144 Filed 9–18–03; 12:01 pm]
White and Richard Deertrack (Indian Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158). BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
tribes). DATES: Comments must be received on
The first meeting of the advisory or before October 22, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
group was held August 28–29, 2001, in
Las Vegas, Nevada; the second meeting application may be mailed or delivered
National Highway Traffic Safety
was held October 4–5, 2002, in Tusayan, in triplicate to the FAA at the following
Administration
Arizona. address: Detroit Airports District Office,
11677 South Wayne Road, Suite 107, Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition,
Agenda for the October 2003 Meeting Romulus, Michigan 48174. DP03–003
In addition, one copy of any
As a tentative agenda, the NPOAG comments submitted to the FAA must AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
will review the status of the AMTP be mailed or delivered to Mr. Steve Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
process to date, the data acquisition and Bower of the Western Reserve Port ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect
analysis process (Hawaii Volcanoes Authority at the following address: 1453 investigation.
National Park and Zion studies), receive Youngstown-Kingsville Road, NE.,
an update on quiet technology, and Vienna, OH 44473–9797. SUMMARY: This notice describes the
discuss the status of interim operating Air carriers and foreign air carriers reasons for denying a petition (DP03–
authority for air tour operators. A final may submit copies of written comments 003) submitted to NHTSA under 49
previously provided to the Western U.S.C. 30162, requesting that the agency
agenda will be available the day of the
Reserve Port Authority under section conduct a ‘‘Petition Analysis * * *
meeting.
158.23 of Part 158. specific to problems of Vehicle Speed
Attendance at the Meeting FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Control linkages which results [sic] in
Jason K. Watt, Program Manager, Detroit sudden, unexpected excessive
Although this is not a public meeting, acceleration even though there is no
interested persons may attend. Because Airports District Office, 11677 South
Wayne Road, Suite 107, Romulus, pressure applied to the accelerator
seating is limited, if you plan to attend, pedal.’’
Michigan, (734) 229–2906. The
please contact one of the persons listed
application may be reviewed in person FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Young, Office of Defects Investigation
at this same location.
CONTACT so that meeting space may
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA (ODI), NHTSA; 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
accommodate your attendance. Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:
proposes to rule and invites public
Record of the Meeting comment on the application to impose (202) 366–4806.
and use the excess revenue from a PFC SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a
If you cannot attend the meeting, a at Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport petition dated April 25, 2003, Mr. Peter
summary record of the meeting will be under the provisions of the 49 U.S.C. Boddaert requested NHTSA to conduct
made available by the Office of 40117 and Part 158 of the Federal a Petition Analysis ‘‘covering Lexus
Rulemaking (ARM), 800 Independence Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158). cars, model years 1997 to 2000, model
Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591. On September 3, 2003, the FAA series 300 & 400.’’ Mr. Boddaert, made
Contact is Linda Williams (202) 267– determined that the application to this request after experiencing at least
9683, or linda.l.williams@faa.gov. impose and uses the excess revenue three events involving alleged
Issued in Washington, DC, on September from a PFC submitted by Western unintended engine speed increase in his
16, 2003. Reserve Port Authority was model year (MY) 1999 Lexus LS 400.
substantially complete within the The third of these resulted in a crash
David E. Cann,
requirements of section 158.25 of part when his vehicle rear-ended another
Acting Director, Flight Standards Service. 158. The FAA will approve or stopped at a traffic light. According to
[FR Doc. 03–24139 Filed 9–18–03; 12:01 pm] disapprove the application, in whole or the petitioner, his Lexus was inspected
BILLING CODE 4910–31–P in part, no later than December 3, 2003. by multiple dealers, and no mechanical

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:40 Sep 19, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22SEN1.SGM 22SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 183 / Monday, September 22, 2003 / Notices 55077

cause was ever identified that would least three times. The first time was reported increase. However, the term properly refers
explain what happened in any of the to NHTSA on ODI [complaint] #760680. The to an ‘‘unintended, unexpected, high-power
three incidents. most recent occurrence was on Friday April acceleration from a stationary position or a
In support of his petition, Mr. 17th in the state of Virginia when, without very low initial speed accompanied by an
warning and without me touching the apparent loss of braking effectiveness.’’2 The
Boddaert cites a number of consumer accelerator pedal the car accelerated forward definition includes ‘‘braking effectiveness’’
complaints in NHTSA’s database rear ending the car ahead of me. For this I because operators experiencing a SA incident
concerning ‘‘vehicle speed control’’ in received a police citation. On the previous typically allege they were pressing on the
the subject vehicles. Included among occasions when this has happened the car brake pedal and the vehicle would not stop.
the thirty-six reports he cites is one has been to the Lexus dealer for inspection. ‘‘Sudden acceleration’’ does not describe
involving a Lexus that ‘‘collided with Each time the dealer says they cannot unintended events that begin after vehicles
five other cars in the space of one half replicate the problem and can find nothing have reached intended roadway speeds.
mile before it could be stopped.’’ wrong. From all the other ODI reports, the
response from the dealer is the same. 2.2 The NHTSA Study
NHTSA has reviewed the material
In analyzing the petitioner’s allegations On March 7, 1989, NHTSA released a
cited by the petitioner. The results of
and preparing a response, we: report, authored by John Pollard and E.
this review and our analysis of the
• Reviewed the petitioner’s April 25, 2003 Donald Sussman, titled ‘‘An Examination of
petition’s merit is set forth in the DP03– letter and two other complaints he filed with Sudden Acceleration,’’ documenting the
003 Petition Analysis Report, published the agency on April 14, 2003 and April 28, agency’s efforts (the ‘‘Study’’) to determine
in its entirety as an appendix to this 2003, both concerning unintended engine what was causing a relatively large number
notice. speed increase in his MY 1999 LS 400.1 of crashes in certain model vehicles due to
For the reasons presented in the • Reviewed a report documenting apparent unintended (and substantial) engine
petition analysis report, there is no NHTSA’s study of sudden acceleration. ‘‘An power increase and alleged simultaneous loss
reasonable possibility that an order Examination of Sudden Acceleration’’ was of braking effectiveness. Typically, these
concerning the notification and remedy published in January 1989 and is available events began while the vehicle was
from the National Technical Information stationary, shortly after the driver had first
of a safety-related defect would be entered it. They frequently ended in a crash.
Service; Springfield, VA 22161, as report
issued as a result of granting Mr. number DOT–HS–807–367. While the phenomenon affected all automatic
Boddaert’s petition. Therefore, in view • Reviewed two NHTSA reports (MF99– transmission-equipped cars sold in the U.S.,
of the need to allocate and prioritize 002 and MF99–002–Supplemental) some had notably higher occurrence rates,
NHTSA’s limited resources to best concerning a fatal sudden acceleration crash with the Audi 5000 eclipsing them all.3 The
accomplish the agency’s safety mission, occurring in Minneapolis, MN on December issue of ‘‘runaway’’ Audi 5000s had been the
the petition is denied. 4, 1998. subject of NHTSA defect investigations and
• Reviewed information gathered and safety recalls, class action lawsuits,
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations analyzed during NHTSA’s assessment of considerable media coverage, and public
of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8. petition DP99–004 (Sudden Acceleration, controversy. Internationally, other
Issued on: September 15, 2003. MY 1988 Lincoln Town Car). governments investigated the phenomenon
Kathleen C. DeMeter, • Reviewed information gathered and during roughly the same time period.4
analyzed during NHTSA’s assessment of To help resolve the issue and thoroughly
Acting Associate Administrator for
petition DP02–005 (Sudden Acceleration, explore topics not fully investigated
Enforcement.
MY 1991–95 Jeep Cherokee/Grand Cherokee). previously, NHTSA Administrator Diane
Appendix—Petition Analysis—DP03– • Reviewed information gathered and Steed ordered an independent review of SA
003 analyzed during NHTSA’s Preliminary in October 1987 (the ‘‘Study’’). The
Evaluation, PE02–035 (Brake/Acceleration Transportation Systems Center (TSC) of
1.0 Introduction Pedal Separation— Ford Taurus/Sable MY Cambridge, Massachusetts was
On May 13, 2003 the National Highway 2000–2001). commissioned by NHTSA to study SA and
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) • Reviewed our consumer complaint identify the factors that cause and/or
received an April 25, 2003 letter from Mr. database for ‘‘sudden acceleration’’ and/or contribute to its occurrence. Ten different
Peter Boddaert asking the agency to conduct ‘‘vehicle speed control’’ related reports make/model/year vehicles—all with cruise
a ‘‘petition analysis’’ of 1997 through 2000 received through July 9, 2003 concerning control—were selected for particular
model year (MY) Lexus 300 and 400 series Lexus, Cadillac, and Lincoln vehicles. scrutiny. Not all of the vehicles had
vehicles (subject vehicles) for ‘‘problems of • Reviewed vehicle manufacturer unusually high SA incident rates; some were
Vehicle Speed Control linkages which results information provided to us during various chosen based on their use of certain design
[sic] in sudden, unexpected excessive sudden acceleration investigations. approaches seen throughout the industry. In
[vehicle] acceleration even though there is no • Inspected a MY 1999 Lexus LS 400 to this way, the Study’s sample was reasonably
pressure applied to the accelerator pedal.’’ In assess the operation of its various engine and representative of the United States’ automatic
support of his petition, Mr. Boddaert cites brake control systems and their interface transmission-equipped vehicle population as
consumer complaints he found on NHTSA’s with the driver. a whole.
Web site concerning ‘‘vehicle speed control’’ • Obtained vehicle production quantity TSC collected literature, individual case
in the subject vehicles. Included among these information from Wards. documentation, and data for each of the
reports is one involving a Lexus that • Reviewed various Lexus vehicle service selected vehicles. Many drivers involved in
‘‘collided with five other cars in the space of manuals. an alleged sudden acceleration incident were
one half mile before it could be stopped.’’ • Reviewed various Lexus vehicle owner
The petitioner contends that, of the 271 manuals. 2 John Pollard and E. Donald Sussman, An
Lexus-related complaints in NHTSA’s Examination of Sudden Acceleration (Cambridge,
2.0 The Issue of Sudden Acceleration
consumer complaint database, 36 (13%) have MA.: NHTSA, 1989, DOT–HS–807–367), v.
been coded by the agency as relating to 2.1 ‘‘Sudden Acceleration (SA)’’ 3 The sudden acceleration report rate for 1978

‘‘vehicle speed control.’’ According to the The term ‘‘sudden acceleration’’ (SA) has through 1987 Audi 5000’s was 586/100,000.
petitioner, this report frequency indicates been used (and misused) to describe vehicle
4 Transport Canada issued a report entitled

there is a ‘‘significant’’ safety concern with events involving any unintended speed
‘‘Investigation of Sudden Acceleration Incidents’’ in
the subject Lexus vehicles. December 1988, concluding driver error caused the
To buttress his claim, the petitioner relates phenomenon. The Japanese Ministry of Transport
1 In the first complaint (ODI #760680), he alleges released a report, ‘‘An Investigation on Sudden
his own experience as follows:
‘‘Engine revs to extremely high rpm (–5000) with Starting and/or Acceleration of Vehicles with
In my own case, I own [owned, he has since no throttle input from driver.’’ In the second Automatic Transmissions,’’ in April 1989, which
traded for another vehicle] a 1999 Lexus complaint (ODI #10017631), he simply reports ‘‘The concluded that there was no common mechanical
LS400 and have experienced this problem at vehicle experienced sudden acceleration.’’ cause for sudden acceleration.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:40 Sep 19, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22SEN1.SGM 22SEN1
55078 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 183 / Monday, September 22, 2003 / Notices

interviewed. TSC studied and tested the owner complaints that may involve a sudden to expand the petition’s scope to include all
vehicles’ fuel, cruise control, and braking acceleration event are coded (or in the case six Vehicle Speed Control categories.
systems.5 The vehicles’ driving controls were of reports pre-dating the roll-out, re-coded) as
evaluated for both location within the cabin 3.2 Lexus and its Peers
‘‘Vehicle Speed Control’’ related (component
and operation. After gathering the code 180). These complaints form a subset of To determine whether incidents involving
information, TSC convened a panel (the all complaints where a problem related to alleged sudden acceleration and/or vehicle
‘‘Panel’’) of independent experts in various vehicle (i.e., engine) speed control was speed control malfunctions are more
disciplines 6 to review the data and make alleged (including, for example, some stalling frequently reported to NHTSA by Lexus
recommendations. owners, we compared the reporting
complaints). Where a specific component is
At the conclusion of TSC’s effort,
identified, the complaint is more frequency for Lexus, Cadillac, and Lincoln
comprising thousands of person-hours
gathering data, comprehensively testing descriptively coded as either: a. the vehicles, as these represent a significant
vehicles including their systems and accelerator pedal (component code 181); b. portion of the luxury car and SUV market. In
equipment, interviewing owners and drivers, throttle linkages (component code 182); c. each instance, we searched the NHTSA
and inspecting crash scenes and the vehicles throttle cable(s) (component code 183); d. complaint database for all reports filed under
involved, a report was released with the throttle return springs (component code 184); component code 180 through 185 for vehicles
following conclusion: ‘‘For a sudden or e. the cruise control system (component where the ‘‘make’’ is Lexus, Cadillac, or
acceleration incident in which there is no code 185). In his petition, Mr. Boddaert Lincoln and the model year is 1997 through
evidence of throttle sticking or cruise control requested that we conduct a petition analysis 2000. This search revealed a total of 182
malfunction, the inescapable conclusion is related to ‘‘Vehicle Speed Control-linkages,’’ reports.
that these definitely involve the driver component code 182. Our review of the
inadvertently pressing the accelerator instead NHTSA consumer complaints database found 3.3 Report Frequency
of, or in addition to, the brake pedal.’’7 seven linkage-related complaints for MY Of the 182 reports found in the search
3.0 The ODI Consumer Complaint Database 1997–2000 Lexus vehicles and sixty described above, 60 relate to Lexus vehicles,
complaints if all six Vehicle Speed Control 57 involve Cadillacs, and 65 concern
3.1 ‘‘Vehicle Speed Control’’ coding categories are included. On July 10, Lincolns. We then normalized this data to
With NHTSA’s recent roll-out of the 2003, we discussed this issue with the account for differences in vehicle production
ARTEMIS consumer complaint repository, all petitioner and advised him that we planned quantities. Here are the results:

TABLE 1.—VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL REPORT RATE/100K FOR LEXUS AND PEERS
Make No. of complaints Production Rate/100K

Lexus ................................................................................................................................... 60 599,983 10.0


Cadillac ................................................................................................................................ 57 650,449 8.7
Lincoln .................................................................................................................................. 65 610,340 10.6

Based on this analysis, there is no evidence further assess the Lexus field experience, we related to Vehicle Speed Control-linkages.
that Lexus vehicles are experiencing vehicle conducted the analysis originally requested Here are those results:
speed control-related problems more by the petitioner; i.e., we limited the
frequently than their peers. However, to complaint count to only those complaints

TABLE 2.—VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL-LINKAGES REPORT RATE/100K FOR LEXUS AND PEERS
Make No. of complaints Production Rate/100K

Lexus ................................................................................................................................. 7 599,983 1.2


Cadillac .............................................................................................................................. 5 650,449 .76
Lincoln ................................................................................................................................ 11 610,340 1.8

Again, the results fail to establish the prioritize NHTSA’s limited resources to best Goodman, Richard M. and Center for Auto
existence of a defect trend related to Lexus accomplish the agency’s safety mission, the Safety. Automobile Design Liability. 3d,
vehicle speed control problems and/or petition is denied. Volume 2, New York, NY: Clark, Boardman,
sudden acceleration incidents reported to and Callaghan, 1991.
NHTSA. References
Mortimer, R.G., Segal, L., Dugoff, H.,
4.0 Conclusion Bracket, Pezoldt, Sherrod, and Roush. Campbell, J.D., Jorgeson, C.M., and Murphy,
September 1989. Human Factors Analysis of R.W. ‘‘Brake force requirements study:
The information gathered does not indicate Automotive Foot Pedals. Texas Driver-vehicle braking performance as a
that Lexus vehicles are over-represented in
Transportation Institute. DOT report HS– function of brake system design variables.’’
the NHTSA database for consumer
807–512. Highway Safety Research Institute (HSRI),
complaints concerning sudden acceleration
and/or problems with vehicle speed control. Bosch, Robert. Automotive Handbook. Final Report contract FH–11–6952, National
Based on the foregoing analysis, there is no Stuttgart: Robert Bosch GmbH, 1993. Highway Safety Bureau, 1970.
reasonable possibility that an order Toyota Motor Corporation. 1999 Repair National Broadcasting Co. Not So Fast.
concerning the notification and remedy of a Manual, Volumes 1 and 2. Lexus LS400. New York, NY. NBC News Dateline NBC.
safety-related defect would be issued as a Japan, 1998. February 10, 1999.
result of granting Mr. Boddaert’s petition. Toyota Motor Corporation. 1999 Lexus B. Peacock & W. Karwowski (Eds.),
Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and Owner’s Manual, LS400. Japan, 1998. Automotive Ergonomics: Human Factors in

5 In some instances, the testing was performed by was highly credentialed, including Dr. John B. Laboratory, and Dr. Phillip B. Sampson, Hunt
NHTSA’s Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC). Haywood, professor of Mechanical Engineering at Professor of Psychology, Tufts University.
6 The curriculum vitae of all the panelists is
M.I.T. and Director of its Sloan Automotive 7 Pollard and Sussman, 49.
included in Appendix A to the Report. The panel

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:40 Sep 19, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22SEN1.SGM 22SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 183 / Monday, September 22, 2003 / Notices 55079

the Design and Use of Automobiles. London: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION incorporating ‘‘a typical step-through
Taylor and Francis, 1991. ‘‘scooter’’ floorboard platform without
Perel, M. (1983). Vehicle Familiarity and National Highway Traffic Safety the conventional stationary frame
Safety (Tech. Report DOT HS–806–509). Administration mounted motorcycle foot pegs.’’ This
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of configuration does not incorporate ‘‘and
[Docket No. NHTSA 03–16170]
Transportation. would not support a brake pedal, the
Schmidt, Richard A. ‘‘Unintended Grant of Application of Motive Power pedal pivot, hydraulic components or
Acceleration: A Review of Human Factors Industry Co., Ltd. for Temporary cable linkage and stresses associated
Contributions,’’ Human Factors Society, Inc. Exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle with a foot actuated rear brake control.’’
31(3), 345–364. Safety Standard No. 123 Redesigning the scooters to comply with
U.S. Department of Transportation. the rear brake control location
National Highway Traffic Safety This notice grants the application by requirement would destroy their appeal,
Administration, Office of Defects Motive Power Industry Co., Ltd., in Motive Power’s opinion, ‘‘making
Investigation. ‘‘Engineering Analysis Closing (‘‘Motive Power’’) of Chang-Hwa Hsien, them non-competitive in any market.’’
Report, EA78–110,’’ by Wolfgang Reinhart. Taiwan, R.O.C., for a temporary Absent an exemption from FMVSS No.
Washington, DC: NHTSA, August 3, 1996. exemption from a requirement of S5.2.1 123, therefore, Motive Power asserted
U.S. Department of Transportation. (Table 1) of Federal Motor Vehicle that it will be unable to sell in the
National Highway Traffic Safety Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 123 United States the scooter models named
Administration, Office of Defects Motorcycle Controls and Displays. above.
Investigation. ‘‘The Effect of Motive Power asserted that
Countermeasures to Reduce the Incidence of Acompliance with the standard would Arguments Why the Overall Level of
Unintended Acceleration Accidents’’ by prevent the manufacturer from selling a Safety of the Vehicles To Be Exempted
Wolfgang Reinhart. Paper (No. 94 S5 O 07) motor vehicle with an overall level of Equals or Exceeds That of Non-
delivered to the Fourteenth International safety at least equal to the overall safety Exempted Vehicles.
Technical Conference on Enhanced Safety of level of nonexempt vehicles,’’ 49 U.S.C. As required by statute, Motive Power
Vehicles, Munich, Germany, May 23–26, Sec. 30113(b)(3)(iv). has argued that the overall level of
1994, a conference sponsored by the U.S. Given that NHTSA has provided the safety of the motorcycles covered by its
Department of Transportation. opportunity for public comment on a petition is at least equal to that of a non-
U.S. Department of Transportation. number of petitions by manufacturers of exempted motor vehicle for the
National Highway Traffic Safety similar vehicles in the years 1998–2002 following reasons. The three scooter
Administration, Office of Defects (which resulted only in comments in models covered by the petition are
Investigation. Investigation of Sudden support of the petitions), we have equipped with automatic transmissions
Acceleration Incident in Minneapolis, MN, by concluded that a further opportunity to and have the rear brake control located
Bob Young. MF99–002, January 12, 1999. comment on the same issues as those on the left handlebar, ‘‘as is typical for
U.S. Department of Transportation. earlier petitions is not likely to result in scooters extensively used throughout
National Highway Traffic Safety any substantive submissions, and that the world.’’ According to Motive Power,
Administration, Office of Defects we may proceed to a decision on this the location of all controls is identifiable
Investigation. Investigation of Sudden petition. See, e.g., the grant of and accessible, and eliminating the left
Acceleration Incident in Minneapolis, MN, applications by five motorcycle
Supplemental Report, by Bob Young. MF99–
hand operated clutch lever, the left foot
manufacturers (67 FR 62850). operated gearshift lever and the right
002, March 18, 1999.
U.S. Department of Transportation. The Reason Why the Applicant Needs foot operated rear brake control ‘‘results
Transportation Systems Center. An a Temporary Exemption in greatly simplified operation.’’
Examination of Sudden Acceleration, by
In addition, Motive Power
Through its designated agent and represented that these models meet the
John Pollard and E. Donald Sussman. DOT United States Distributor, Cosmopolitan
report HS–807–367. Cambridge, MA: TSC,
brake stopping distance requirements of
Motors Inc. of Hatboro, Pa., Motive FMVSS No. 122, Motorcycle Brake
January 1989. Power has applied for an exemption for
U.S. Department of Transportation. Systems, and enclosed copies of tests,
three models ‘‘of scooter configuration,’’ which have been placed in the docket
National Highway Traffic Safety identified as the My BuBu 100: P100DA;
Administration, Office of Defects with the petition.
My BuBu 125: PA125DA; and T-Rex
Investigation. Petition Analysis, by Bob 150: CP 150D. These motor vehicles are Arguments Why an Exemption Would
Young. DP99–004, Washington, DC: NHTSA, defined as ‘‘motorcycles’’ (49 CFR Be in the Public Interest and Consistent
April 6, 2000. With the Objectives of Motor Vehicle
571.3(b)) and must comply with all
U.S. Department of Transportation. Safety.
FMVSS that apply to motorcycles,
National Highway Traffic Safety
including FMVSS No. 123. Motive Power argued that ‘‘scooters
Administration, Office of Defects If a motorcycle is produced with rear
Investigation. Petition Analysis, by John like these are of significant and growing
wheel brakes, S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 123 interest to the public,’’ as evidenced by
Ridgley. DP02–005, Washington, DC:
requires that the brakes be operable the number of exemption petitions
NHTSA, June 24, 2002.
through the right foot control, although NHTSA has received and granted for
U.S. Department of Transportation.
the left handlebar is permissible for this type of vehicle.
National Highway Traffic Safety
motor-driven cycles (Item 11, Table 1).
Administration, Office of Defects NHTSA’s Decision on the Application.
Motor-driven cycles are motorcycles
Investigation. ‘‘Preliminary Evaluation,
PE02–035,’’ by Bob Young. Washington, DC:
with motors that produce 5 brake It is evident that, unless FMVSS No.
NHTSA, October 22, 2002.
horsepower or less. Motive Power 123 is amended to permit or require the
petitioned to use the left handlebar as left handlebar brake control on motor
[FR Doc. 03–23959 Filed 9–18–03; 12:01 pm] the control for the rear brakes of three scooters with more than 5 hp, Motive
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P of its motorcycles whose engines Power will be unable to sell its motor
produce more than 5 brake horsepower. scooters in the United States if it does
It describes the vehicles as not receive a temporary exemption from

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:40 Sep 19, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22SEN1.SGM 22SEN1