Motor vehicle safety standards; exemption petitions, etc.: Vectrix Corp.,

[Federal Register: August 20, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 161)]

[Notices]

[Page 45585-45587]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr20au99-139]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 99-5541; Notice 2]

Vectrix Corporation; Grant of Application for Temporary Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123

For the reasons expressed below, we are granting the petition by Vectrix Corporation of New Bedford, Massachusetts, 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 grant is our finding that ``the exemption would make the development or field evaluation of a low-emission vehicle easier and would not unreasonably

[[Page 45586]]

lower the safety level of that vehicle,'' 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iii).

We published notice of receipt of the application on April 26, 1999, affording an opportunity for comment (64 FR 20353). No comments were received on this notice.

The following discussion is based on information in Vectrix's application.

Argument Why an Exemption Would Make the Development or Field Evaluation of a Low-Emission Vehicle Easier and Would Not Unreasonably Lower the Safety Level of That Vehicle

The Vectrix Electric Scooter is ``powered exclusively by an electric motor which draws current from ten 12-volt lead-acid batteries wired in series,'' and is a ``low-emission vehicle'' within the meaning of the statute.

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, though the left handlebar is permissible for motor driven cycles (Item 11, Table 1). Vectrix would like to use the left handlebar as the control for the rear brakes of its Electric Scooter whose ``peak motor output of 26 horsepower'' produces more than the 5 hp maximum that separates motor driven cycles from motorcycles. The Electric Scooter can attain speeds up to 60 mph. The gear ratio of the vehicle is fixed, and ``there is no need for the rider to shift gears, as on a standard motorcycle.'' Because of this, the Electric Scooter ``is equipped with neither a clutch nor a clutch lever, and the left hand of the rider is free to operate a brake lever.'' Vectrix states that it prefers this design, given its focus on European and Asian markets ``where rear brake controls for scooters of all horsepower ratings are typically mounted on the left handlebar.''

Vectrix argues that a left handlebar rear-brake control ``will not `unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle,' compared to a fully compliant vehicle equipped with a right foot, rear brake pedal.'' It believes that ``vehicle safety might be somewhat enhanced with the left hand brake lever, as the hand (bare or gloved) is generally more capable of sensitive modulation of the braking force than the foot.'' It also argues that the prevalence of this design in other countries attests to the fact that this type of vehicle ``can be operated safely.''

Vectrix intends to field test ``a small fleet'' of Electric Scooters, to assess ``any weaknesses in the design before production begins in summer, 1999.'' Requiring it to redesign the Electric Scooter to incorporate a rear brake foot pedal would delay the road test program by six months. While an exemption is in effect, Vectrix would consider whether the U.S. scooter market offered sufficient sales potential to justify creation of a U.S.-specific design incorporating a right foot brake pedal. Alternatively, it might petition NHTSA for rulemaking to ``allow the rear brake to be operated by a lever mounted on the left handlebar for all motorcycles designed without a clutch.''

The applicant anticipates sales of 600 Electric Scooters while an exemption is in effect.

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

Vectrix believes that an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety ``because it would maintain an acceptable level of safety while accelerating the advancement of an important new class of vehicles for use by consumers and businesses.''

Our Finding That an Exemption Would Make the Development or Field Evaluation of a Low-Emission Vehicle Easier and Would Not Unreasonably Lower the Safety Level of That Vehicle

In adopting Standard No. 123 in April 1972, effective September 1, 1974, we justified standardization of the location and operation of motorcycle controls as a means of minimizing operator error in responding to the motoring environment, saying that ``a cyclist, especially the novice and the cyclist who has changed from one make of machine to another, must not hesitate when confronted with an emergency'' (37 FR 7207). Therefore, we have traditionally regarded with concern any deviation from standardization.

Recently, we granted a petition similar to that of Vectrix, a request by Aprilia, S.p.A., for a temporary exemption of its Leonardo 150 that would allow the left hand control to serve as the control for the rear brake (64 FR 44264). We had asked Aprilia to comment on our concern that a left hand lever-operated rear brake may contribute to unfamiliarity and thus degrade a rider's overall braking reaction beyond what would exist on a motorcycle with conventionally configured controls. At the request of Aprilia's U.S. sales subsidiary, Aprilia U.S.A. Inc. of Woodstock, Georgia, Carter Engineering of Franklin, Tennessee, prepared a report on ``Motorscooter Braking Control Study'' (Report No. CE-99-APR-05, May 1999) comparing braking response times of riders using the left hand control of the Leonardo 150 and the right foot control of the Yamaha XC-125 Riva. We placed a copy of this report in Docket No. NHTSA-98-4357. Aprilia U.S.A. observed that ``[o]verall, the test subjects' reaction times on the Leonardo were approximately 20% quicker than their reaction times on the conventional motorcycle.'' Aprilia believed that ``a less complex braking arrangement like that of the Leonardo will improve rider reaction in an emergency situation.''

We interpreted the report as indicating that a Leonardo rider's braking response is not likely to be degraded by the different placement of the brake controls, thus directly addressing and meeting our safety concern. We believe it is also germane to consider that it applies to Vectrix's Electric Scooter as well. The maximum speed of the Vectrix, 60 mph, is slightly less than that of the Leonardo 150's 65.7 mph. The principal difference between the two vehicles appears to be in the method of propulsion, which we do not deem relevant to the issue of rear brake control location and operation. An exemption would permit Vectrix to test market the 600 vehicles intended.

Accordingly, we find that a temporary exemption would make the development and field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle easier, and that such an exemption would not unreasonably lower the safety level of the vehicle.

Our Finding That an Exemption Would Be in the Public Interest and Consistent With the Objectives of Motor Vehicle Safety

We find that the entry into the nation's motor vehicle fleet of 600 low-emission motor vehicles is in the public interest. We also find that allowing this limited number of motor vehicles whose rear brake controls allows braking performance at least equivalent to that of a conforming vehicle is consistent with the objectives of motor vehicle safety.

Therefore, Vectrix Corporation is hereby granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. 99-10 from the requirement 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 Electric Scooter and will expire on July 1, 2001.

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

[[Page 45587]]

Issued on: August 12, 1999. Ricardo Martinez, Administrator.

[FR Doc. 99-21338Filed8-16-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P