[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 130 (Tuesday, July 8, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40744-40745]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-17108]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 03-15520]


Grant of Applications of Two Motorcycle Manufacturers for 
Temporary Exemptions and Renewal of Temporary Exemptions From Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123

    This notice grants the applications by two motorcycle manufacturers 
for temporary exemptions, and renewal of temporary exemptions, from a 
requirement of S5.2.1 (Table 1) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays. The applicants 
asserted 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).
    Aprilia, U.S.A. Inc., Woodstock, Ga., has applied for an extension 
of exemption for the Aprilia Scarabeo 150 (NHTSA Temporary Exemption 
No. 99-9), and for new exemptions for the Aprilia Mojito 150, Atlantic 
200, Atlantic 500, and Scarabeo 500 models. American Honda Motor 
Company, Inc., Torrance, California, has applied for an extension of 
exemption for the Honda FSC600 (previously FJS600)(NHTSA Temporary 
Exemption No. EX 2001-8).
    Because the safety issues are identical we have decided to address 
all petitions in a single notice. Further, given the opportunity for 
public comment on these issues in the years 1998-2002 (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., the grant of applications by 
five motorcycle manufacturers (67 FR 62850).

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. Honda 
and Aprilia 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 
is at least equal to 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.
    The five models for which Aprilia seeks exemption are equipped with 
engines ranging from 150cc to 50cc in displacement. They are configured 
identically with respect to their brake controls. In its earlier 
petitions, Aprilia cited tests performed by Carter Engineering on a 
similarly-configured 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 
Dockets No. NHTSA 98-4357 and 01-10257. Aprilia cites these materials 
in support of its applications for the Scarabeo 150 and Atlantic 500 
models. The company has submitted individual test reports for the 
Mojito 150, Atlantic 200, and Scarabeo 500 models, which have been 
placed in the docket identifying this notice. 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. In its 
latest petition, Aprilia 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. 
(This exemption was scheduled to expire on October 1, 2002, but the 
expiration date was tolled as provided by 49 CFR 555.8(e) for timely 
filings. Aprilia's petition for renewal was dated May 2, 2002.)
    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 FSC600 can easily meet the braking 
performance requirements of both Standard 122 and ECE 78,'' and, 
therefore, that ``This braking system provides the FSC600 with an 
overall safety level exceeding * * * nonexempted vehicles.''
    Honda attached to its petition copies of a second effectiveness 
service brake system test conducted in accordance with S5.3 of Standard 
No. 122, demonstrating that the FSC600 easily stopped within the 
maximum distances specified at speeds of 30 and 65 mph, as well as a 
test showing compliance with ECE 78.

[[Page 40745]]

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

    Aprilia asserted in its initial request 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.'' For this reason, Aprilia argues that 
an exemption would also be consistent with the objectives of motor 
vehicle safety. Aprilia asserted that ``the braking configuration of 
the Atlantic 500 is safer than non-exempt vehicles currently being 
operated in the U.S.,'' and ``allows for a more natural braking 
response by the rider.'' Aprilia reiterated this assertion with respect 
to the Scarabeo 500, the Mojito 150, and the Atlantic 200.
    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 FSC600 
is equal to similar vehicles certified under Standard 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 motor scooters 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 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 at least equal to that 
of nonexempted motorcycles.
    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. 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 July 1, 2005. This exemption applies only to the Aprilia 
Scarabeo 150.
    2. 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 July 1, 2005. This exemption applies only to the 
Honda FSC600.
    3. Aprilia USA Inc. is hereby granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. 
EX03-3 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 brakes be operable through the right foot control. This exemption 
applies only to the following Aprilia models: Mojito 150, Atlantic 200, 
Atlantic 500, and Scarabeo 500. The exemption will expire on July 1, 
2005. (49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50).

    Issued on June 27, 2003.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 03-17108 Filed 7-7-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P