[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 145 (Friday, July 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39222-39223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-18762]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2001-9430; Notice 2]


Bajaj Auto, Ltd.; Grant of Application for Temporary Exemption 
From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123

    This notice grants the application by Bajaj Auto, Ltd., an Indian 
corporation, submitted by Rex Products, Inc. of South San Francisco, 
CA, dba Bajaj USA, 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 is 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. Sec. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iv).
    Notice of receipt of the application was published on April 20, 
2001, and an opportunity afforded for comment (66 FR 20349).
    Bajaj applied on behalf of its Saffire motor scooters 
(``scooters'') with automatic clutches. The scooters are defined as 
``motorcycles'' for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. According to Bajaj, the Saffire has a 90cc 
engine and a top speed of 60 km/h.
    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, though the left handlebar is permissible for motor driven 
cycles (Item 11, Table 1). Bajaj would like to use the left handlebar 
for the rear brake control for the scooters. Standard No. 123 specifies 
the left handlebar as the location for the manual clutch or integrated 
clutch and gear change, but there is no clutch on the automatic 
scooters.
    Bajaj 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. Although ``it is true 
that the human foot can apply much more force than can the hand, the 
foot is much less sensitive to travel distance. With the lever/cable 
operated brake system used on the Saffire, there is more than enough 
brake actuation force available to the hand of even the smallest 
rider.''
    Bajaj intends to begin sales in the United States ``for market 
testing purposes during the 2001 sales year'' and would like to include 
the Saffire in

[[Page 39223]]

its product line; without an exemption it would be unable to do so.
    Bajaj anticipates sales of not more than 2500 scooters a year while 
an exemption is in effect. It believes that an exemption would be in 
the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic 
safety because it is intended for low-speed urban use, in ``congested 
traffic conditions,'' and ``has been tested by long use in India and 
the rest of the world.'' The petitioner states that ``neither consumer 
groups nor governmental authorities have raised any safety concerns as 
a result of this design.'' The scooter provides ``environmentally clean 
and fuel efficient * * * urban transportation.'' Specifically, ``the 
exhaust, crankcase, and evaporative emissions of the motor scooter's 
very small engine have been demonstrated to be lower than alternative 
means of transportation such as large motorcycles.'' If the exemption 
is granted, ``the American consumer will be provided with a broader 
range of choice of low-cost, efficient, transportation.''
    Bajaj's application was supported by Jeff Saunders of Palo Alto, 
California, and three other commenters. In Mr. Saunders' opinion, 
``Scooters offer an excellent way for novice riders to learn to operate 
a motorcycle, particularly due to the automatic transmission, the 
natural riding position, and the smaller size and weight of scooters as 
opposed to traditional motorcycles of similar engine size.''
    NHTSA has exempted four other motorcycle manufacturers from S5.2.1 
(Piaggio, 65 FR 64741; Vectrix, 64 FR 45585); Italjet, 64 FR 58127, and 
Aprilia, 64 FR 44262). Our concern 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,'' available for examination in Docket No. NHTSA-
99-4357. This report indicated that test subjects' brake reaction times 
using a vehicle configured like the Saffire 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 placement of brake controls, 
and cited it in granting the similar petition by Vectrix. In Bajaj's 
case, the favorable comments appear to sustain our previous 
conclusions. As we announced in granting Piaggio's petition in October 
2000, ``we intend to initiate rulemaking to amend Standard No. 123 to 
address the location of the brake control on vehicles with automatic 
transmissions, such as the petitioner manufactures.'' That remains our 
intent.
    With respect to the public interest and the objectives of motor 
vehicle safety, the overall level of safety, as Bajaj argues, appears 
at least equal to that of vehicles certified to comply with Standard 
No. 123. Jeff Saunders comments that an exemption would be in the 
public interest by making available a compact, fuel-efficient vehicle 
for urban use that would not otherwise be available without an 
exemption. According to the comment, this is especially important in an 
urban location such as San Francisco where parking ``may cost as much 
as $400 per month but parking for scooters and motorcycles is often 
free.'' He also relates that ``brakes on the handlebars and the 
automatic transmission also allow this motorcycle to be ridden (with a 
sidecar) by handicapped persons with limited leg use, who would 
otherwise have to have expensive brake and transmission modifications 
made to vehicles' which comply with Standard No. 123.
    In consideration of the foregoing, we hereby find that Bajaj 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, Bajaj Auto Ltd. is hereby granted NHTSA 
Temporary Exemption No. EX2001-5 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 Saffire and 
will expire on June 1, 2003.

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50)

    Issued on July 23, 2001.
L. Robert Shelton,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 01-18762 Filed 7-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P