[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 8, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62850-62852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-25522]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 02-13469]


Grant of Applications of Five Motorcycle Manufacturers for 
Temporary Exemption, and Requests for Extension of Temporary Exemption, 
From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123

    This notice grants the applications by five motorcycle 
manufacturers for either 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, or for an extension 
of two years of an existing temporary exemption from such requirement. 
The applicants assert that ``compliance with the standard 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,'' 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30113(b)(3)(iv).
    The manufacturers who have applied for a temporary exemption are 
CPI Motor Co. of Ta-Li City, Taiwan (CPI), for the Motorrad JT 125 
(Moskito); American Suzuki Motor Corporation, Brea, California, on 
behalf of Suzuki Motor Corporation of Japan, for the Suzuki AN650, and 
Malaguti USA, Miami, Florida, on behalf of Malaguti S.p.A. of Bologna, 
Italy, for the Ciak 150 cc and F-18 150 cc motor scooters. The 
manufacturers who have applied for an extension of an existing 
exemption are Aprilia, U.S.A. Inc., Woodstock, Ga. for the Aprilia 
Scarabeo 150 (NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. 99-9, expiring October 1, 
2002 (see 64 FR 44264, 65 FR 1225, and 66 FR 59519)); and American 
Honda Motor Company, Inc., Torrance, California, for the Honda 
NSS250(NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. EX 2000-2, expiring November 1, 
2002, 65 FR 69130).
    Because the safety issues raised by petitions for renewal of 
exemptions are identical to those raised in the initial petitions by 
these manufacturers, and because these issues are identical to those 
raised by the manufacturers petitioning for an exemption for the first 
time, we have decided to address all the petitions in a single notice. 
Further, given the opportunity for public comment on these issues in 
the years 1998-2001 (which resulted only in comments in support of the 
petitions), we have concluded that a further opportunity to comment on 
the same issues is not likely to result in any substantive submissions, 
and that we may proceed to decisions on these petitions. See, e.g., 
most recently Aprilia and Honda (66 FR 59519) and Aprilia (65 FR 1225).

The Reason Why the Applicants Need a Temporary Exemption

    The problem is one that is common to the motorcycles covered by the 
applications. 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, although the left handlebar is permissible for 
motor-driven cycles (Item 11, Table 1). Motor-driven cycles are 
motorcycles with motors that produce 5 brake horsepower or less. The 
five manufacturers petitioned to use the left handlebar as the control 
for the rear brakes of certain of their motorcycles whose engines 
produce more than 5 brake horsepower. The frame of each of these 
motorcycles has not been designed to mount a right foot operated brake 
pedal (i.e, these scooter-type vehicles which provide a platform for 
the feet and operate only through hand controls). Applying considerable 
stress to this sensitive pressure point of the frame could cause 
failure due to fatigue unless proper design and testing procedures are 
performed.
    Absent an exemption, the manufacturers will be unable to sell the 
motorcycle models named above because the vehicles would not fully 
comply with Standard No. 123.

Arguments Why the Overall Level of Safety of the Vehicles To Be 
Exempted Equals or Exceeds That of Non-Exempted Vehicles

    As required by statute, the petitioners have argued that the 
overall level of safety of the motorcycles covered by their petitions 
equals or exceeds that of a non-exempted motor vehicle for the 
following reasons. All vehicles for which petitions have been submitted 
are equipped with an automatic transmission. As there is no foot-
operated gear change, the operation and use of a motorcycle with an 
automatic transmission is similar to the operation and use of a 
bicycle, and the vehicles can be operated without requiring special 
training or practice.
    CPI is manufacturing the Moskito 125 (JT125) under contract with 
Motorrad und Zweiradwerk GmbH of Germany, which has completed 
certification testing of the vehicle. CPI will affix a certification of 
compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards as the 
manufacturer of the Moskito 125, and then ship the motorcycles directly 
to Motorrad of North America for sale in the United States.
    According to CPI, the JT125 provides an equivalent overall level of 
safety to a complying vehicle because its operation is similar to that 
of a bicycle, and the use of a left-hand lever for the rear brake is 
highly intuitive and easy to use. The use of the left handlebar for the 
rear brake control on scooters is more natural and quicker for a 
scooter rider than the rider's foot searching for the correct position 
on a pedal to operate the brakes. In addition, ``additional benefit is 
provided by the reduced probability of inadvertent wheel locking in an 
emergency braking situation, which comes from increased sensitivity to 
brake feedback with the hand lever.''
    American Suzuki informed us that its AN650 ``can easily meet the 
braking performance requirements in FMVSS 122,'' and enclosed a test 
report in support. It also compared the performance of the AN650 with 
the somewhat lighter GSF600S motorcycle, which is equipped with rear 
brakes that

[[Page 62851]]

are operable using a right foot control, and found the braking 
performance ``very similar.''
    Malaguti submitted its models to Clark Engineering for braking 
performance tests, and enclosed a test report in support of its 
petition. It asserted that the Ciak 150 cc and F-18 150 cc meet the 
braking requirements of ECE 93/14 as well.
    In its earlier petitions, Aprilia cited tests performed by Carter 
Engineering on a similar Aprilia scooter to support its statement that 
``a motor vehicle with a hand-operated rear wheel brake provides a 
greater overall level of safety than a nonexempt vehicle.'' See 
materials in Docket No. NHTSA 98-4357. According to Aprilia, a rear 
wheel hand brake control allows riders to brake more quickly and 
securely, it takes a longer time for a rider to find and place his foot 
over the pedal and apply force than it does for a rider to reach and 
squeeze the hand lever, and there is a reduced probability of 
inadvertent wheel locking in an emergency braking situation. Aprilia 
provided copies of its own test reports on a similar exempted model, 
the Habana, dated March 1, 2001, and May 1, 2001, which have been 
placed in Docket No. NHTSA-01-10257. In its latest petition, it stated 
that it has received no written complaints relating to the brake 
operation of the Scarabeo 150s which it has imported and sold under 
NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. 99-9.
    Aprilia also pointed out that European regulations allow motorcycle 
manufacturers the option of choosing rear brake application through 
either a right foot or left handlebar control, and that Australia 
permits the optional locations for motorcycles of any size with 
automatic transmissions.
    Honda informed us that ``the NSS250 can easily meet the braking 
performance requirements of both FMVSS 122 and ECE 78,'' and, 
therefore, that ``This braking system provides the NSS250 with an 
overall safety level exceeding * * * nonexempted vehicles.'' Honda will 
also offer the NSS250 with optional ABS for the purpose of a 
marketability evaluation.
    In support of its petition, Honda enclosed copies of a second 
effectiveness service brake system test conducted in accordance with 
S5.3 of Standard No. 122, demonstrating that the NSS250 easily stopped 
within the maximum distances specified at speeds of 30 and 65 mph, as 
well as a test showing compliance with ECE 78.

Arguments Why an Exemption Would be in the Public Interest and 
Consistent With the Objectives of Motor Vehicle Safety

    CPI argued that its scooter is intended for low speed urban use and 
that it expects that these vehicles will be used mostly in congested 
traffic conditions. The JT125 provides a more natural braking response 
because of its automatic transmission and platform configuration. The 
vehicle provides ``enhanced safety, environmentally clean and fuel 
efficient, safe, convenient urban transportation. The emissions of the 
JT125's ``very small engine'' have been demonstrated to be lower than 
large motorcycles, an alternative means of transportation.
    American Suzuki argued that the level of safety of the AN650 is at 
least equal to that of vehicles certified to meet Standard No. 123. In 
its opinion, scooters like the AN650 ``are of interest to the public 
[as] evidenced by * * * the favorable public comment on [similar] 
exemption requests and the number of scooters sold under the granted 
exemptions.''
    In Malaguti's opinion, its scooters provide a ``much more natural 
braking response by the rider than non-exempted vehicles.'' The 
exemption would also be in the public interest ``because Malaguti is 
promoting environmentally clean and efficient urban transportation.''
    Aprilia asserted in its initial requires for exemption that ``the 
public interest would be served with the granting of the exemption 
because the Scarabeo 150 provides enhanced safety as well as 
environmentally friendly, fuel-efficient, convenient urban 
transportation.'' According to Aprilia, its initial assertion is 
supported by feedback from initial customers. It has enclosed comments 
from Scarabeo 150 customers touting the speed and handling of the 
motorcycle, and a magazine article commenting that it is ``the perfect 
vehicle for stop-and-go traffic.''
    An exemption would be in the public interest because the Scarabeo 
150 is intended for low-speed urban use, and ``it is expected that it 
will be used predominantly in congested traffic areas.'' Further, the 
design of the vehicle has been tested by long use around the world, and 
``neither consumer groups nor government authorities have raised safety 
concerns about this design.'' For this reason, Aprilia argues that an 
exemption would also be consistent with the objectives of motor vehicle 
safety.
    In support of its argument that an exemption would be in the public 
interest and consistent with the objectives of motor vehicle safety, 
Honda reiterated its certainty ``that the level of safety of the NSS250 
is equal to similar vehicles certified under FMVSS No. 123. * * *''

NHTSA's Decisions on the Applications and Request

    It is evident that, unless Standard No. 123 is amended to permit or 
require the left handlebar brake control on motorscooters with more 
than 5 hp, the petitioners will be unable to sell their motorcycles if 
they do not receive a temporary exemption from the requirement that the 
right foot pedal operate the brake control. It is also evident from the 
previous grants of similar petitions by Aprilia, Honda, and others, 
that we have repeatedly found that the motorcycles exempted from the 
brake control location requirement of Standard No. 123 have an overall 
level of safety that equals or exceeds that of nonexempted motorcycles.
    CPI argued that an exemption would be in the public interest 
because it would make available a low-emission, fuel efficient, 
convenient means of urban transportation in congested traffic 
conditions. Thus, it appears to us that use of the JT125 would reduce 
both pollution and congestion on city streets. We note its remark, too, 
that ``neither consumer groups nor governmental authorities have raised 
any safety concerns as a result of this design.''
    American Suzuki's argument that an exemption would be in the public 
interest because of the comments in support of previous exemption 
requests for similar scooter-type vehicles is a valid one, absent any 
data indicating that the overall level of safety is not at least equal 
to that of complying vehicles.
    Malaguti's arguments are similar to those of other petitioners 
regarding braking response and enhancing the environment and urban 
transportation.
    Aprilia's argument that an exemption for the Habana 150 would be in 
the public interest because of its probable use in congested urban 
areas is equally applicable to the Scarabeo 150, as is its arguments 
that use of such vehicles worldwide has raised no vehicle safety issues 
related to location of brake controls. Honda reiterated its belief that 
overall the NSS250 is as safe as a conforming motorcycle. We note that 
its original request in 2000 for exemption from Standard No. 123 for 
this model was supported by approximately 40 commenters (See 66 FR 
69130). This response to our request for comments indicates a great 
public interest in scooter-type vehicles and a belief of the

[[Page 62852]]

commenters that such vehicles have a place in the nation's overall 
private-vehicle transportation fleet.
    In consideration of the foregoing, we hereby find that the 
petitioners have met their burden of persuasion that to require 
compliance with Standard No. 123 would prevent these manufacturers 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. Therefore:
    1. CPI Motor Co. is hereby granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. 
EX02-1 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 covers only the Motorrad JT125 (Moskito) and expires on 
October 1, 2004.
    2. Suzuki Motor Corporation is hereby granted NHTSA Temporary 
Exemption No. EX02-2 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 brakes be operable through the right foot control. This 
exemption applies only to the Suzuki AN650, and will expire on October 
1, 2004.
    3. Malaguti S.p.A. is hereby granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. 
EX02-3 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 covers only the Ciak 150 cc and F-18 cc, and expires on 
October 1, 2004.
    4. NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. 99-9, exempting Aprilia USA Inc. 
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, is hereby extended 
to expire on October 1, 2004. This exemption applies only to the 
Aprilia Scarabeo 150.
    5. NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. EX2001-8, exempting American Honda 
Motor Co., Inc., 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 brakes be operable through the right foot control, is hereby 
extended to expire on October 1, 2004. This exemption applies only to 
the Honda NSS250.

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

    Issued on October 3, 2002.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-25522 Filed 10-7-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P