[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 161 (Friday, August 20, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45585-45587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21338]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 99-21338 Filed 8-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P