[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60700-60702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22852]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2004-18745]


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

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

ACTION: Grant of applications for temporary exemptions and renewals of 
temporary exemptions from a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

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

SUMMARY: This notice grants the applications by three motorcycle 
manufacturers (Honda, Piaggio, and Yamaha) for temporary exemptions, 
and renewal of 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. We are permitting each manufacturer 
to use the left handlebar as an alternative location for the rear brake 
control. Each applicant has 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.''

DATES: The grant of each application for temporary exemption expires 
September 1, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact 
Mr. Michael Pyne, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards at (202) 366-
4171. His FAX number is: (202) 493-2739.
    For legal issues, you may contact 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. 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 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 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-

[[Page 60701]]

driven cycles are motorcycles with motors that produce 5 brake 
horsepower or less (See 49 CFR 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 application 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 
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.

[[Page 60702]]

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. Notification of Receipt of Applications and Public Comments

    On August 2, 2004 (60 FR 46205) (Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18745), we 
published a Federal Register notice announcing the receipt of 
applications for temporary exemptions and of renewals of exemptions 
from Honda, Piaggio, and Yamaha. We published each applicant's reasons 
why the overall safety of the motorcycles equals or exceed that of non-
exempted motorcycles, and why each applicant claimed an exemption would 
be in the public interest and would be consistent with the objectives 
of motor vehicle safety. We asked for public comment on each 
application.
    In response to the August 2, 2004, document, we received eight 
comments. All commenters except for one, favored granting the 
applications for temporary exemption from the requirements of item 11, 
column 2, table 1 of FMVSS No. 123. The commenter who did not favor 
granting the applications wrote that placing the rear brake control on 
the left handle bar would be ``confusing to the rider'' because 
historically the clutch release has been in that location. The 
commenter did not state if the confusion has been his personal 
experience, and did not cite specific instances where such confusion 
may have led to a rider losing control of the motorcycle or led to a 
crash. Five of the commenters wrote in favor of a specific 
manufacturer's product.

VI. NHTSA's Decisions on the Applications

    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. EX-2002-2, exempting Honda Motor 
Company, Ltd. 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 September 1, 2007. This exemption applies only to 
the Honda NSS250.
    2. Honda Motor Company, Ltd. is hereby granted NHTSA Temporary 
Exemption No. EX-04-2 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 wheel brakes be operable through the right foot control. 
This exemption applies only to the Honda PS250. This exemption will 
expire on September 1, 2007.
    3. NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. EX-2002-3 exempting Piaggio & C. 
S.p.A. and Piaggio 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 September 1, 2007. This 
exemption applies only to the Vespa ET4.
    4. Piaggio & C. S.p.A. and Piaggio USA, Inc. are hereby granted 
NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. EX-04-3 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 applies only to the following 
Piaggio models: Vespa GT200, Piaggio BV200, and the Piaggio X9-500. 
This exemption will expire on September 1, 2007.
    5. Yamaha Motor Corporation USA is heregy granted NHTSA Temporary 
Exemption No. EX-04-4 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 Yamaha YP-400 model. The exemption will 
expire on September 1, 2007.

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

    Issued on: October 5, 2004.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-22852 Filed 10-8-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M