[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62622-62627]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-29952]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[DOT Docket No. NHTSA-99-6472]
RIN 2127-AH15


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Motorcycle Brake Systems

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, we (NHTSA) propose to amend the Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard on motorcycle brakes by reducing the 
minimum hand lever force from 5 pounds (presently specified) to 2.3 
pounds and the minimum foot pedal force from 10 pounds (presently 
specified) to 5.6 pounds in the fade recovery and water recovery tests. 
We believe these proposals, if adopted, would facilitate the 
manufacture of motorcycles with combined or ``linked'' braking systems 
(where hand and foot brakes work in tandem) that do not need so much 
force exerted on them to be effective. This rulemaking was initiated in 
response to a petition from American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that 
Docket Management receives them not later than January 18, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You should mention the docket number of this document in 
your comments and submit your comments in writing to: Docket 
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 
20590.
    You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324. You may visit the Docket 
from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical issues, you may call Mr. Joseph Scott, Office of Crash 
Avoidance Standards at (202) 366-8525. His FAX number is (202) 493-
2739.
For legal issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the Chief 
Counsel at (202) 366-2992. Her FAX number is (202) 366-3820.
You may send mail to both of these officials at National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC, 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 122, Motorcycle brake 
systems, (49 CFR Sec. 571.122) took effect on January 1, 1974 (see 
Federal Register notice of June 16, 1972, 37 FR 1973). Standard No. 122 
specifies performance requirements for motorcycle brake systems. The 
purpose of the standard is to provide safe motorcycle braking 
performance under normal and emergency conditions. The safety afforded 
by a motorcycle's braking system is determined by several factors, 
including stopping distance, linear stability while stopping, fade 
resistance, and fade recovery. A safe system should have features that 
both guard against malfunction and stop the vehicle if a malfunction 
should occur in the normal service system. Standard No. 122 covers each 
of these aspects of brake safety, establishing equipment and 
performance requirements appropriate

[[Page 62623]]

for two-wheeled and three-wheeled motorcycles. Among other 
requirements, the motorcycle manufacturer must be sure that each 
motorcycle can meet requirements under conditions specified in S6 Test 
conditions and as specified in S7 Test procedures and sequence. Two of 
the tests specified in S7 are the fade and recovery test and the water 
recovery test. Each test includes a baseline check test.
    The baseline check is used to establish a specific motorcycle's 
pre-test performance to provide a basis for comparison with post-test 
performance. This comparison is intended to ensure adequate brake 
performance, at reasonable lever and pedal forces, after numerous high 
speed or wet condition stops. The two tests for which minimum lever and 
pedal forces are specified in Standard No. 122 are the baseline checks 
for fade and recovery, and for water recovery.
    The fade and recovery test compares the braking performance of the 
motorcycle before and after ten 60 mile per hour stops at a 
deceleration of not less than 15 feet per second per second 
(fps2). Three baseline stops are conducted from 30 miles per 
hour at 10 to 11 fps2, with the maximum brake lever and 
maximum pedal forces recorded during each stop, and averaged over the 
three baseline stops. Ten 60-mile-per-hour stops are conducted at a 
deceleration rate of 14 to 17 fps2, followed immediately by 
five fade recovery stops from 30 miles per hour at a deceleration rate 
of 10 to 11 fps2. The maximum brake pedal and lever forces 
measured during the fifth recovery stop must be within plus 20 pounds 
and minus 10 pounds of the baseline average maximum brake pedal and 
lever forces.
    The water recovery test compares the braking performance of the 
motorcycle before and after the motorcycle brakes are immersed in water 
for two minutes. Three baseline stops are conducted from 30 miles per 
hour at 10 to 11 fps2, with the maximum brake lever and 
pedal forces recorded during each stop, and averaged over the three 
baseline stops. The motorcycle brakes are then immersed in water for 
two minutes, followed immediately by five water recovery stops from 30 
miles per hour at a deceleration rate of 10 to 11 fps2. The 
maximum brake pedal and lever forces measured during the fifth recovery 
stop must be within plus 20 pounds and minus 10 pounds of the baseline 
average maximum brake pedal force and the lever force.

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. Petition for Rulemaking

    In a submission dated November 3, 1997, American Honda Motor Co., 
Inc. (Honda) petitioned us to amend Standard No. 122 to eliminate the 
minimum hand lever force of 5 pounds and the minimum foot pedal force 
of 10 pounds for the fade recovery and water recovery tests. Honda 
requested these changes in order to facilitate the U.S. sale of the 
Honda CBR1100XX, a high performance motorcycle, and to avoid having to 
manufacture two separate versions of the vehicle, one for the United 
States and another for Europe. Honda's stated rationale for the 
proposed changes was to provide the motorcycle rider with a more linear 
braking lever input force, so that the safety advantages of the 
CBR1100XX Combined Brake System (CBS) can be fully utilized. The safety 
advantages cited were enhanced motorcycle stability and decreased 
stopping distance. Honda stated that the CBS provides the advantages by 
applying braking to both wheels when either the hand lever or the foot 
pedal is applied.
    In its petition, Honda stated that: ``when Standard No. 122 was 
originally drafted, it was clearly based on motorcycle independent 
front and rear brake systems, and did not anticipate or fully address 
the current generation of relatively advanced braking systems.'' Honda 
explained that the CBS allows the rider to apply the brakes to both 
wheels by activating either the hand lever or the foot pedal. In the 
past (and when Standard No. 122 was first promulgated), motorcycles 
used independent controls, i.e., the hand lever controlled the front 
brakes and the foot pedal controlled the rear brakes. On the CBR1100XX, 
in contrast, the brake forces are proportioned to both the front and 
the rear brakes depending on whether the hand lever or the foot pedal 
is used. For example, if the motorcyclist applies only the hand lever, 
a greater portion of the braking occurs at the front wheel. Similarly, 
if the motorcyclist applies only the foot pedal, most of the braking 
will occur at the rear wheel. These results are achieved by using 
multi-piston brake calipers at each wheel, which can be partially or 
fully applied, depending on whether the hand lever or the foot pedal is 
applied.
    Honda stated that the requested amendments to Standard No. 122 are 
needed because of the gradual reduction in the motorcycle operator 
force levels (in advanced designs such as the CBR1100XX) needed for 
brake actuation. Honda explained that reductions in force levels are 
possible because of technological advances such as better brake pads, 
rotor designs and materials; better brake hose materials; stiffer 
caliper designs and attachments; improved motorcycle tire design, 
construction, and compounds; and the CBS. Honda asserts that its CBS 
represents a technological improvement for motorcycles. With its new 
system, motorcycle operator control and braking characteristics are 
similar to those of an automobile driver, i.e., one input results in 
braking at all wheels.
    Honda also stated that a minimum lever or pedal force is not 
required in the European motorcycle regulation, ECE Regulation 78, and 
that no related safety problems or ``excessively sensitive brakes'' 
have been reported in Europe or elsewhere. Honda stated its belief that 
the elimination of a minimum force requirement in Standard No. 122 
would increase global harmonization.
    In a letter dated July 13, 1998, Honda amended its petition, 
requesting that, in Standard No. 122, the minimum hand lever force be 
reduced to 10 Newtons (2.3 pounds) and the minimum foot pedal force be 
reduced to 25 Newtons (5.6 pounds).
    In a Federal Register notice dated October 7, 1997 (62 FR 52372), 
we granted Honda a temporary exemption from the following Standard No. 
122 provisions for the CBS100XX motorcycle: S5.4.1 Baseline check--
minimum and maximum pedal forces, S5.4.2 Fade, S54.3 Fade recovery, 
S5.7.2 Water recovery test, and S6.10 Brake actuation forces. Honda was 
granted a second one-year exemption from those provisions in a Federal 
Register notice of November 25, 1998 (63 FR 65272). The second one-year 
exemption expired on September 1, 1999.
    In a letter dated March 16, 1999 NHTSA granted Honda's petition for 
rulemaking.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In this notice, we propose amending Standard No. 122 by reducing 
the minimum hand lever force to 10 Newtons (2.3 pounds), and reducing 
the minimum foot pedal force to 25 Newtons (5.6 pounds). We also 
explain why we are not proposing the complete elimination of a minimum 
braking force for the hand lever and the foot pedal, and why we believe 
there are benefits to specifying lower minimum hand lever and foot 
pedal forces.

Determination of Minimum Hand Lever and Foot Pedal Forces

    The following explains how we have recalculated the fade recovery 
(S5.4.3) and the water recovery (S5.7.2) test

[[Page 62624]]

ranges to take into account the lower minimum hand lever and foot pedal 
forces. As earlier noted, the fade recovery and the water recovery 
tests include a range within which the hand lever and foot pedal forces 
must be for the fifth recovery stop. At present, Standard No. 122 
specifies a 30-pound range with upper and lower limits of plus 20 
pounds to minus 10 pounds, respectively, of the baseline check average 
force obtained from conducting the baseline checks. We propose to 
revise the limits to correspond with the proposed minimum lever and 
pedal brake forces.
    Standard No. 122 was developed using the ``Report of the Motorcycle 
Committee and Brake Committee''; July 1969 from the Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE). For foot pedals, the current lower limit 
value specified, minus 10 pounds, is based on the minimum foot pedal 
force level required for the brake actuation forces for the baseline 
check stops. Since the baseline check average for the foot pedal force 
is required to be at least 10 pounds, a lower limit of minus 10 pounds, 
therefore, allows the pedal force achieved during the fifth recovery 
stop to be zero pounds. Similarly, the baseline check average for the 
hand lever force is required to be at least five pounds. However, 
within the specified range of plus 20 pounds and minus 10 pounds, the 
hand lever force for the fifth recovery stop could theoretically be as 
low as minus five pounds. It is physically impossible for the lever 
force to be less than zero. Thus, the practical range of the hand lever 
force for the fifth recovery is reduced from 30 pounds to 25 pounds. 
For hand lever forces of 10 pounds or more achieved during the baseline 
check stop, the range for the resulting forces during the fifth 
recovery stop would be 30 pounds.
    In this NPRM, we propose to maintain this 30-pound range in the 
braking forces. The 30-pound range in metric measurement is 135 
Newtons. For the hand lever forces, different upper and lower values 
for the range are proposed to ensure that the force in the fifth 
recovery stop could not be specified as less than zero Newtons. Taking 
into consideration the proposed reductions in the minimum foot pedal 
and hand lever forces for the baseline check stops, we have proposed 
revised upper and lower limits accordingly, so that the forces obtained 
in the fifth recovery stop could not be theoretically less than zero 
Newtons. We propose the following limits:

For the proposed 25 Newton (5.6 pounds) foot pedal minimum, we propose 
as limits plus 110 Newtons (24.7 pounds) and minus 25 Newtons (5.6 
pounds); and
For the proposed 10 Newton (2.3 pounds) hand lever minimum, we propose 
as limits plus 125 Newtons (28.1 pounds) and minus 10 Newtons (2.3 
pounds).

We believe that these limits more appropriately reflect the 
corresponding minimum lever and pedal efforts proposed for the baseline 
check stops.

Striking a Balance between Mature and State-of-the-Art Technologies

    One important reason for retaining minimum braking forces is that 
motorcycles are still being manufactured that do not have the linked 
braking system found on the Honda CBR1100XX. For model year 1999, 
cable-actuated brakes and drum brakes (the predominant technology at 
the time Standard No. 122 was issued) continue to be used on many new 
motorcycles. In this rulemaking, we seek a common ground between the 
old and new technologies, ensuring that Standard No. 122's safety 
requirements remain applicable to motorcycles manufactured with mature 
technology, but are flexible enough to ensure that motorcycles 
manufactured with new technology meet the need for safety. Maintaining 
a minimum hand lever and foot pedal force will ensure that motorcycles 
using mature technology will not have problems with overly sensitive 
brakes.
    For motorcycles using state-of-the-art technologies, we foresee a 
continuing trend towards lower braking forces. We believe that in the 
future, electronic braking technology could become commercially 
available on motorcycles. That application might allow motorcyclists to 
stop their motorcycles using less hand lever or foot pedal force. Even 
with these trends toward lower brake forces, the minimum forces 
proposed in this rulemaking are for a deceleration rate of 10 to 11 
fps\2\ and would therefore always be greater than the lever and pedal 
forces needed for the onset of braking.

International Harmonization Issues

    Based on information obtained from the United Nations' Economic 
Commission for Europe (ECE) and Dr. Nicholas Rogers, Secretary General 
of the International Motorcycle Manufacturers' Association (in Geneva), 
we understand that minimum hand lever or foot pedal forces are not 
required in ECE Regulation 78. However, even though minimum forces are 
not specified in the European regulation, that does not mean that 
current production European motorcycles' braking systems are activated 
with extremely low lever or pedal forces. As an example, on a European 
version of the Honda CBR1100XX, the minimum hand lever force measured 
for the fade and water recovery tests is 4.6 pounds, a force close to 
the 5 pound hand lever force minimum presently in Standard No. 122.

Human Factors Issues

    Eliminating minimum hand lever and foot pedal forces may raise a 
human factors concern for American riders who are not accustomed to the 
lower hand and foot forces that European motorcyclists have 
experienced. We seek specific public comment on this issue. With regard 
to lower minimum forces, however, many motorcyclists have noted that 
reduced hand lever and foot pedal braking forces may result in better 
control, a safety benefit. We also note that increasing numbers of 
motorcyclists are older persons (older than 65 years of age) and women, 
population groups who may welcome the availability of motorcycles with 
linked braking systems and the reduced braking inputs required at the 
lever and the pedal. As earlier noted, linked braking systems such as 
Honda's CBS can balance the undesired handling and braking 
characteristics of ``sensitive brakes'' by applying the brakes at both 
wheels when either the lever or pedal is applied.

Other Rulemaking Issues

    Finally, our review of Standard No. 122, disclosed that the 
introductory text to S6 , Test conditions, had been inadvertently 
removed. We are proposing to restore the removed language, provided in 
the proposed regulatory text that follows.

Leadtime

    We propose that the proposed amendments, if made final, would take 
effect one year after the publication of the final rule. We believe 
that manufacturers are already making motorcycles that can meet the 
proposed minimum braking forces. In the event changes in design or 
manufacturing procedures are necessary, we believe one year would be 
enough lead time for industry to make any necessary changes. Motorcycle 
manufacturers would be given the option of complying immediately with 
the new requirements.

[[Page 62625]]

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' 
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed 
under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' Further, we have 
determined that this action is not ``significant'' within the meaning 
of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and 
procedures. Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
    For the following reasons, NHTSA believes that this proposal, if 
made final, would not have any cost effect on motorcycle manufacturers. 
We believe that all motorcycle manufacturers are manufacturing 
motorcycles that meet the new minimum hand lever and foot pedal forces 
proposed in this NPRM.
    Because the economic impacts of this proposal are so minimal, no 
further regulatory evaluation is necessary.

Executive Order 12612

    We have analyzed this proposal in accordance with Executive Order 
12612 (``Federalism''). We have determined that this proposal does not 
have sufficient Federalism impacts to warrant the preparation of a 
federalism assessment.

Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or 
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by us.
    This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not 
economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866. It does not involve 
decisions based on health risks that disproportionately affect 
children.

Executive Order 12778

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12778, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' we 
have considered whether this proposed rule would have any retroactive 
effect. We conclude that it would not have such an effect. Under 49 
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable 
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal 
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a 
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for 
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial 
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a 
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before 
parties may file suit in court.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    The Administrator has considered the effects of this rulemaking 
action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and 
certifies that this proposal would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual statement 
that is the basis for this certification is that since all motorcycle 
manufacturers, including small manufacturers, are already manufacturing 
motorcycles that would meet the new minimum braking forces proposed in 
this notice of proposed rulemaking, any changes made by this proposed 
rule would have no substantive effect on small motorcycle 
manufacturers. The U.S. Small Business Administration's size standards 
(at 13 CFR 121.201) defines a small motorcycle manufacturer (under 
Standard Industrial Classification Code 3711``Motor Vehicles and 
Passenger Car Bodies'') as a business operating primarily in the United 
States that has fewer than 1,000 employees. Accordingly, the agency 
believes that this proposal, if made final, would not affect the costs 
of the motorcycle manufacturers considered to be small business 
entities.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this proposal for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have any 
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not 
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency 
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This 
proposal does not propose any new information collection requirements.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory 
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,

[[Page 62626]]

sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, 
through OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    After conducting a search of available sources, we have determined 
that there are no available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards that we can use in this notice of proposed rulemaking.

Unfunded Mandates

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more 
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base 
year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written 
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to 
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of 
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable 
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
if we publish with the final rule an explanation why that alternative 
was not adopted.
    For the reasons stated above, this proposal would not result in 
costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. Thus, this 
proposal is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 
the UMRA.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES.

How Can I be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential 
business information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.)

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket 
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in 
developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider 
that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:
    1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    2. On that page, click on ``search.''
    3. On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four-
digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example: 
If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type ``1234.'' 
After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may 
download the comments.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber 
products, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that the Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR part 571), be amended as set 
forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. Section 571.122 would be amended by revising S5.4.3, revising 
S5.7.2, adding S6., and revising the first sentence of S6.10 to read as 
follows:


Sec. 571.122  Standard No. 122; Motorcycle braking systems.

* * * * *
    S5.4.3. Fade recovery. Each motorcycle shall be capable of making

[[Page 62627]]

five recovery stops with a pedal force that does not exceed 400 Newtons 
(90 pounds), and a hand lever force that does not exceed 245 Newtons 
(55 pounds) for any of the first four recovery stops and that for the 
fifth recovery stop, is within, for the foot pedal force, plus 110 
Newtons (24.7 pounds) and minus 25 Newtons (5.6 pounds) and, for the 
hand lever force, plus 125 Newtons (28.1 pounds), and minus 10 Newtons 
(2.3 pounds) of the fade test baseline check average force (S7.6.3).
* * * * *
    S5.7.2 Water recovery test. Each motorcycle shall be capable of 
making five recovery stops with a pedal force that does not exceed 400 
Newtons (90 pounds), and hand lever force that does not exceed 245 
Newtons (55 pounds), for any of the first four recovery stops, and that 
for the fifth recovery stop, is within, for the foot pedal force, plus 
110 Newtons (24.7 pounds) and minus 25 Newtons (5.6 pounds) and, for 
the hand lever force, plus 125 Newtons (28.1 pounds) and minus 10 
Newtons (2.3 pounds) of the water recovery baseline check average force 
(S7.10.2).
* * * * *
    S6 Test conditions. The requirements of S5 shall be met under the 
following conditions. Where a range of conditions is specified, the 
motorcycle shall be capable of meeting the requirements at all points 
within the range.
* * * * *
    S6.10 Brake actuation forces. Except for the requirements of the 
fifth recovery stop in S5.4.3 and S5.7.2 (S7.6.3 and S7.10.2), the hand 
lever force is not less than 10 Newtons (2.3 pounds) and not more than 
245 Newtons (55 pounds) and the foot pedal force is not less than 25 
Newtons (5.6 pounds) and not more than 400 Newtons (90 pounds). * * *
* * * * *
    Issued on: November 10, 1999.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Acting Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-29952 Filed 11-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P