[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 147 (Monday, August 2, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46205-46208]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-17535]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18745]


Receipt of Applications for Temporary Exemption From a Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of applications for temporary exemptions from 
a Federal motor vehicle safety standard; Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We have received applications from three motorcycle 
manufacturers (Honda, Piaggio, and Yamaha) for temporary exemptions 
from a provision in the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on 
motorcycle controls and displays specifying that a motorcycle rear 
brake, if provided, must be controlled by a right foot control. The 
manufacturers ask that we permit the left handlebar as an alternative 
location for the rear brake control. Each manufacturer states its 
belief 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.''
    We are publishing this notice of receipt of the applications in 
accordance with our regulations on the subject, and ask for public 
comment on each application. This publication does not mean that we 
have made a judgment yet about the merits of the applications.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that 
Docket Management receives them not later than September 1, 2004.

ADDRESS: You may submit your comments [identified by the DOT DMS Docket 
Number cited in the heading of this document] by any of the following 
methods:
     Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
     Fax: 1-(202)-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-001.
     Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    You may call the Docket at (202) 366-9324. You may visit the Docket 
from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr. 
Michael Pyne, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards at (202) 366-4171. 
His fax number is (202) 493-2739.
    For legal issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the 
Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992. Her fax number is (202) 366-3820.
    You may send mail to these officials at National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

I. Background

    49 U.S.C. section 30113(b) provides the Secretary of Transportation 
the authority to exempt, on a temporary basis, motor vehicles from a 
motor vehicle safety standard under certain circumstances. The 
exemption may be renewed, if the vehicle manufacturer reapplies. The 
Secretary has delegated

[[Page 46206]]

the authority for section 30113(b) to NHTSA.
    NHTSA has established regulations at 49 CFR part 555, Temporary 
Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards. Part 555 
provides a means by which motor vehicle manufacturers may apply for 
temporary exemptions from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards on 
the basis of substantial economic hardship, facilitation of the 
development of new motor vehicle safety or low-emission engine 
features, or existence of an equivalent overall level of motor vehicle 
safety.
    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 123, Motorcycle 
controls and displays (49 CFR section 571.123) specifies requirements 
for the location, operation, identification, and illumination of 
motorcycle controls and displays, and requirements for motorcycle 
stands and footrests. Among other requirements, FMVSS No. 123 specifies 
that for motorcycles with rear wheel brakes, the rear wheel brakes must 
be operable through the right foot control, although the left handlebar 
is permissible for motor-driven cycles. (See S5.2.1, and Table 1, Item 
11. Motor-driven cycles are motorcycles with motors that produce 5 
brake horsepower or less. (See 49 CFR section 571.3, Definitions.)
    On November 21, 2003, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (68 
FR 65667) a notice proposing two regulatory alternatives to amend FMVSS 
No. 123. Each alternative would require that for certain motorcycles 
without a clutch control lever, the rear brakes must be controlled by a 
lever located on the left handlebar. We also requested comment on 
industry practices and plans regarding controls for motorcycles with 
integrated brakes. If this proposed rule is made final, the left 
handlebar would be permitted as an alternative location for the rear 
brake control.

II. Applications for Temporary Exemption From FMVSS No. 123

    NHTSA has received applications for temporary exemption from S5.2.1 
and Table 1, Item 11 from three motorcycle manufacturers: Honda Motor 
Company, Ltd. (Honda); Piaggio & C. S.p.A. and Piaggio USA, Inc 
(Piaggio); and Yamaha Motor Corporation USA (Yamaha) . Honda asks for a 
new temporary exemption for the PS250 (for Model Years (MYs) 2005 and 
2006), and an extension of an existing temporary exemption for the 
NSS250 (for MYs 2005-2006). Piaggio asks for new temporary exemptions 
for the Vespa GT200 (for MYs 2005-2006), the Piaggio BV200 (for MYs 
2005-2006) and the Piaggio X9-500 (for MYs 2005-2006). Piaggio asks for 
an extension of an existing temporary exemption for the Vespa ET4 (for 
MYs 2004-2006). Yamaha asks for a new temporary exemption for the YP-
400 (for MYs 2005-2006), which Yamaha asserts is ``equivalent'' to the 
Yamaha Vino 125. The Vino 125 is the subject of a grant of a temporary 
exemption from Standard No. 123 until March 1, 2005 (See 68 FR 15552; 
March 31, 2003). All of these motorcycles are considered ``motor 
scooters.''
    The safety issues are identical in the case of all of these 
motorcycles. Honda, Piaggio, and Yamaha have applied to use the left 
handlebar as the location for the rear brake control on their 
motorcycles whose engines produce more than 5 brake horsepower (all of 
the motorcycles specified in the previous paragraph). The frames of 
each of the motorcycles that are the subject of these applications for 
temporary exemptions have not been designed to mount a right foot 
operated brake pedal (i.e., these motor scooters have a platform for 
the feet and operate only through hand controls). Applying considerable 
stress to this sensitive pressure point of the motor scooter frame by 
putting on a foot operated brake control could cause failure due to 
fatigue, unless proper design and testing procedures are performed.

III. Why the Petitioners Claim the Overall Level of Safety of the 
Motorcycles Equals or Exceeds That of Non-exempted Motorcycles

    The applicants have argued that the overall level of safety of the 
motorcycles covered by their petitions equals or exceeds that of a non-
exempted motorcycle for the following reasons. Each manufacturer stated 
that motorcycles for which applications 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. Each manufacturer provided the following additional 
arguments:
    Honda--Honda provided separate applications for the new exemption 
for the PS250 and the renewal of the exemption for the NSS250. In both 
cases, Honda provided test data showing how each motorcycle met the 
FMVSS No. 122 Motorcycle brake systems test specified at S5.3, service 
brake system--second effectiveness test. Honda provided separate sets 
of data showing the results of a second effectiveness comparison test 
data for the NSS250 and the PS250 equipped with the combined brake 
system. The test results for the NSS250 and the PS250 were compared to 
results for similarly sized models without the combined brake systems. 
In all cases, the NSS250 and the PS250 had shorter braking stopping 
distances than did the models without the combined brake systems.
    Honda also provided results of ECE 78 test data for the NSS250 and 
PS250, equipped with the combined brake system, and provided test data 
comparing stopping distances on various surfaces using the rear brake 
control only between an NSS250 and a PS250 equipped with a combined 
brake system and a similar model without a combined brake system.
    Piaggio--Piaggio stated that brake tests in accordance with FMVSS 
No. 122 Motorcycle brake systems, were conducted on all Vespa and 
Piaggio models and stated that all models ``easily exceed'' the 
performance requirements of FMVSS No. 122. Piaggio also stated that 
Vespa and Piaggio vehicles fully meet the 93/14 EEC brake testing 
requirements, and enclosed a copy of the brake testing report of the 
``Ministero dei Trasporti e della Navigazione'' Italy or TUV/VCA.
    Piaggio cited several reasons why it believes the left handlebar 
rear brake actuation force provides an overall level of safety that 
equals or exceeds a motorcycle with a right-foot rear brake control. 
Among these reasons, Piaggio cited the ``state of the art'' 
hydraulically activated front disc brakes used on Vespa and Piaggio 
vehicles, as providing more than enough brake actuation force available 
to the ``hand of even the smallest rider.'' Piaggio explained that 
because of the greater physical size of a foot-powered brake pedal, 
mechanical efficiency is lower and inertia about the pivot is higher. 
This results in less effective feedback, or what Piaggio describes as 
``feeling'' of the actuation system. Piaggio asserted that because 
there is more sensitivity to brake feedback from the hand lever, use of 
a hand lever reduces the probability of inadvertent wheel locking in an 
emergency braking situation. Piaggio stated that inexperienced riders 
may lose control of their motorcycle because of rear wheel locking, and 
that use of the hand lever reduces the possibility of rear wheel 
locking.
    Yamaha--Yamaha cited an August 1999 study, ``Motorcycle Braking 
Control Response Study'' by T. J. Carter, as showing that handlebar-
mounted rear brakes have an equivalent level of safety to that of 
right-foot control rear brakes, because handlebar-mounted rear brakes

[[Page 46207]]

have equivalent reaction times to the foot control. Yamaha analogized 
motorcycle operators changing from the dual hand control wheel brakes 
to the hand/foot arrangement, to that of an automobile driver going 
from an automatic transmission to a stick shift. Yamaha asserted: 
``[t]here have been no required warnings of `change' or `difference in 
operating character' to the automobile operator, nor has there been 
shown to be a lessened or lowered level of equivalent safety for the 
two different systems on the same platform (automobiles).''

IV. Why Petitioners Claim an Exemption Would Be in the Public Interest 
and Would be Consistent With the Objectives of Motor Vehicle Safety

    Each manufacturer offered the following reasons why temporary 
exemptions for their motorcycles would be in the public interest and 
would be consistent with the objectives of motor vehicle safety:
    Honda--For both the NSS250 and the PS250, Honda asserted that it is 
``certain'' that the level of safety of the two motorcycles ``is equal 
to similar vehicles certified under FMVSS No. 123; therefore, we seek 
renewal of the [or a new] temporary exemption from this standard.'' 
Honda noted that both the NSS250 and the PS250 are equipped with a 
combined brake system. The combined brake system uses both front and 
rear disc brakes and employs a unique three-piston front caliper. 
Applying the right handlebar brake lever activates the front brake 
caliper. Applying the left handlebar brake lever activates one piston 
in the front brake caliper and the rear brake caliper.
    Honda asserted that with the combined brake system, the rider is 
able to precisely control brake force distribution, depending on which 
control is used. Applying the right handlebar lever activates the outer 
two pistons in the front caliper. In this case, the front wheel 
receives a larger portion of the braking force. Applying the left 
handlebar lever activates the center piston in the front caliper and 
the single piston in the rear caliper. A valve has been installed in 
this system to slightly delay the brake force at the front wheel. This 
delay improves braking by allowing the rear of the scooter to settle, 
which helps to minimize front nose dive and weight shift. Honda further 
noted that using both controls at once activates all pistons in both 
calipers for maximum braking force.
    For the NSS250, Honda plans to offer some models with an optional 
antilock-brake system.
    Piaggio--Piaggio stated that with the introduction of automatic 
transmission engines on motorcycles, ``the Code of Federal Regulations 
is completely out of harmonization with the majority of countries in 
the world as far as the FMVSS 123-S5.2.1 is concerned.'' Piaggio 
asserted all European Community countries permit motorcycle 
manufacturers to make their own decision whether to use a left 
handlebar control or a right foot control for rear wheel brakes.
    Yamaha--Since there have been many previous exemptions to Standard 
No. 123, S5.2.1, and Table 1, Item 11 granted, Yamaha asserts that 
``the grounds and precedent are clear and a redundant reiteration of 
same is not in order to preserve precious Agency time.'' Yamaha 
concluded that its ``request is consistent with the intent of the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and offers an equivalent 
level of safety for consumers and other motorists/highway users.''

V. Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES.
    You may also submit your comments to the docket electronically by 
logging onto the Dockets Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain 
instructions for filing the document electronically.

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential 
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:
    1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    2. On that page, click on ``search.''
    3. On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four-
digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example: 
If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type ``1234.'' 
After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may 
download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents, 
instead of word processing documents, the ``pdf'' versions of the 
documents are word searchable.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue

[[Page 46208]]

to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. 
Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we 
recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

How Does the Federal Privacy Act Apply to My Public Comments?

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. Section 30113; delegations of authority at 
49 CFR 1.50 and 501.4.

    Issued on: July 28, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-17535 Filed 7-30-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P