[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69130-69131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29240]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2000-7354; Notice 2]


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

    We are granting the application by Honda Motor Co. Ltd. 
(``Honda''), a Japanese corporation, through American Honda Motor Co., 
Inc., of Torrance, California, 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 was 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. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iv).
    On May 18, 2000, we published a notice of receipt of the 
application in accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 
30113(b)(2), and asked for comments (65 FR 31629). We received many 
comments in support, as discussed below.
    Honda applied on behalf of its NSS250 motor scooters. The scooters 
are defined as ``motorcycles'' for purposes of compliance with the 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 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 (the left handlebar 
is permissible only for a motor driven cycle (Item 11, Table 1), i.e., 
a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5 brake horsepower or less).
    Honda asked that it be allowed to use the left handlebar as the 
control for the rear brakes of its NSS250, which is a motorcycle and 
not a motor driven cycle. The model features an automatic transmission 
that eliminates the left-hand clutch lever as well as any left-foot 
gearshift lever. This leaves the left hand of the rider free to operate 
a brake lever. In Honda's opinion, ``removal of the left-handlebar 
clutch lever, left-foot-controlled gearshift lever and right-foot-
controlled rear brake pedal result in simpler operation.'' Honda 
pointed out that NHTSA exempted three other motorcycle manufacturers 
from this requirement of S5.2.1. in 1999 (Aprilia, 64 FR 44262; 
Vectrix, 64 FR 45585; and Italjet, 64 FR 58127).
    Honda 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. Unlike the other 
exempted motorcycles, the NSS250 is equipped with a ``combined brake 
system'' which ``provides single-point, front- and rear-wheel braking 
action.'' The vehicle meets the braking performance requirements ``of 
both FMVSS 122 and ECE78.'' The company submitted test results 
demonstrating that the braking performance of the NSS250 with its 
combined brake system is better than that of a scooter without the 
combined brake system. For the second effectiveness test, for example, 
the NSS250 stopped in shorter distances than a Honda model equipped 
with a foot brake, that is to say, from a maximum speed of 65.4 mph in 
165 feet (compared with 178 feet), and, from 30 mph, in 38 feet 
(compared with 40 feet).
    Honda has developed the NSS250 for the world market. In Europe, 
Japan, and other Asian countries, scooters are equipped with handlebar-
mounted front and rear brakes. Absent an exemption, then, Honda said 
that it will be unable to sell the NSS250 in the United States. The 
cost to conform the NSS250 to comply with Standard No. 123 ``would add 
considerable cost to the product'' and result in a motorcycle that 
would not be competitive.
    Honda will not sell more than 2,500 scooters a year while an 
exemption is in effect. It argued that an exemption would be in the 
public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety 
because ``the level of safety is equal to similar vehicles certified 
under FMVSS No. 123.''
    We received approximately 40 comments, all of which urged us to 
grant the application. Typical of the comments are those from Richard 
A. Smith of Orem, Utah, Brian Hotaling of Austin, Texas, and Deb Lee of 
Carriere, Mississippi. Mr. Hotaling adduces that Honda's tests show 
that its ``simple yet innovative combined braking system is better'' 
than that of a scooter without it, and that ``the NSS250 stopped in 
shorter distances than a Honda model equipped with a foot brake by a 
remarkable amount.'' Mr. Smith recommended that ``this exemption should 
be allowed on a permanent basis,'' and that ``given the recent prices 
of gasoline in our country and the environmental concerns over air 
pollution in our cities * * * Honda should be allowed to import more 
than 2500 of these vehicles.'' Ms. Lee recommends an amendment to 
Standard No. 123, and comments that the Honda product ``could be used 
by many senior citizens and Americans with disabilities.''
    As Honda noted in its petition, we have exempted three other 
motorcycle manufacturers from S5.2.1 (Aprilia, 64 FR 44262, re-issued 
at 65 FR 1225; Vectrix, 64 FR 45585; and Italjet, 64 FR 58127). We have 
reviewed Honda's brake test results demonstrating the superiority of 
the NSS250 with its combined brake system over that of a scooter 
without such a system. Our concerns 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'' which is available for examination in Docket 
No. NHTSA-99-4357. This report indicated that test subjects' brake 
reaction times using a vehicle much like Honda's 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

[[Page 69131]]

placement of brake controls, and cited it in granting the similar 
petition by Vectrix. In the present case, the number of favorable 
comments appear to sustain our previous conclusions.
    With respect to the public interest and the objectives of motor 
vehicle safety, the overall level of safety, as Honda argues, appears 
at least equal to that of vehicles certified to comply with Standard 
No. 123. The numerous comments make convincing arguments that an 
exemption would be in the public interest by making available a 
compact, fuel-efficient vehicle that would not otherwise be available 
without an exemption.
    In consideration of the foregoing, we hereby find that Honda 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, Honda Motor Co. Ltd. is hereby granted 
NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. EX2000-2 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 NSS250, and 
will expire on November 1, 2002.

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

    Issued on November 8, 2000.
Sue Bailey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-29240 Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P