[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 155 (Thursday, August 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49020-49022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-19877]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0106; Notice 1]
CFMOTO Powersports, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
CFMOTO Powersports, Inc. (CFMOTO),\1\ agent for the Chunfeng
Holding Group Hangshou Motorcycles Manufacturing Co., LTD. (formerly
known as Zhejiang CFMOTO Power Co., Ltd. (CHG)) has determined that
certain model year 2005-2009 CHG Model CF250T-3(V3) and CF250T-5(V5)
[[Page 49021]]
motorcycles that CFMOTO imported did not fully comply with paragraph
S5.2.1 of 49 CFR 571.123 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)
No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays. CFMOTO has filed an
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CFMOTO Powersports, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, is an
importer of motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), CFMOTO has petitioned for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
This notice of receipt of CFMOTO's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
Affected are a total of 6,405 model year 2005-2009 CHG model
CF250T-3(V3) and CF250T-5(V5) motorcycles,\2\ produced January 1, 2005,
through December 31, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ CFMOTO's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR Part 556,
requests an agency decision to exempt CFMOTO as a manufacturer
(motor vehicle importers are defined as manufacturers by 49 U.S.C.
30102(5)(B)) of motor vehicles from the notification and recall
responsibilities of 49 CFR Part 573 for all 6,405 of the affected
vehicles. However, the agency cannot relieve CFMOTO's distributors
of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or
delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the
noncompliant vehicles under their control after CFMOTO recognized
that the subject noncompliance existed. Those vehicles must be
brought into conformance, exported, or destroyed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 123 requires in pertinent part:
S5.2.1 Control location and operation. If any item of equipment
listed in Table 1, Column 1, is provided, the control for such item
shall be located as specified in Column 2, and operable as specified
in Column 3. Each control located on a right handlebar shall be
operable by the operator's right hand throughout its full range
without removal of the operator's right hand from the throttle. Each
control located on a left handlebar shall be operable by the
operator's left hand throughout its full range without removal of
the operator's left hand from the handgrip. If a motorcycle with an
automatic clutch other than a scooter is equipped with a
supplemental rear brake control, the control shall be located on the
left handlebar. If a scooter with an automatic clutch is equipped
with a supplemental rear brake control, the control shall be on the
right side and operable by the operator's right foot. A supplemental
control shall provide brake actuation identical to that provided by
the required control of Table 1, Item 11, of this Standard. If a
motorcycle is equipped with self-proportioning or antilock braking
devices utilizing a single control for front and rear brakes, the
control shall be located and operable in the same manner as a rear
brake control, as specified in Table 1, Item 11, and in this
paragraph.
Item 11 from:
Table 1--Motorcycle Control Location and Operation Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment control--column 1 Location--column 2 Operation--column 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Rear wheel brakes................... Right foot control............. Depress to engage.
Left handlebar for a motor- Squeeze to engage.
driven cycle and for a scooter
with an automatic clutch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See S5.2.1 for requirements for vehicles with a single control for front and rear brakes, and with a
supplemental rear brake control.
CFMOTO explains that the noncompliance is that, the rear wheel
brake control is located on the left handlebar instead of as a right
foot control as required by paragraph S5.2.1 FMVSS No. 123.
CFMOTO provided the following arguments to support their contention
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety:
The subject vehicles were certified as scooter type motorcycles
by the CHG. CHG believed that the vehicles met all of the
requirements for a scooter under FMVSS No. 123. As a result of the
scooter certification the rear wheel brake was placed on the left
handlebar.
The placement of the rear brake on the left handlebar should be
deemed by the NHTSA as an inconsequential noncompliance, based on
the history and safety records of the vehicles. No consumer
complaints and no warranty claims or incident reports have been
received by CFMOTO or CHG that relate to the lack of a right foot
actuated rear wheel brake.
One of the main reasons consumers have been attracted to the
subject vehicles is that they have the appearance of a motorcycle
and the operation or function of a scooter. Aside from a lack of
pass-through leg area, the vehicles are scooters in all technical
respects. It is the scooter functionality that has been the driving
force behind consumer demand for the vehicles.
Individuals with disabilities prefer the left hand rear brake
controls to those of a foot operated actuator. Similarly, many
consumers want to upgrade from a scooter to a motorcycle without the
complexities of operating a motorcycle and therefore choose the
subject vehicles.
In summation, CFMOTO believes that the described noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Therefore, CFMOTO requests
that its petition, to exempt it from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
CFMOTO also stated that CHG has corrected the problem that caused
these errors so that they will not be repeated in future production.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and
notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by
any of the following methods:
a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays.
c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed
to 1-202-493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If
[[Page 49022]]
comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies
are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments
were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with
the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided.
Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
Comment closing date: September 13, 2010.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: August 6, 2010.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2010-19877 Filed 8-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P