[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 14, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42613-42617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-20428]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[DOT Docket No. NHTSA-01-10367]
RIN: 2127-AH15


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Motorcycle Brake Systems

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, we (NHTSA) 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. The new force levels are 
low enough to accommodate new braking systems that are combined or 
``linked'' (i.e., the hand and foot brakes working in tandem). Compared 
with older motorcycle braking systems, combined or ``linked'' braking 
systems do not need as much force exerted on them to be effective. Yet 
the force levels are still high enough to ensure that motorcycles 
utilizing more mature technologies will not have problems with overly 
sensitive brakes. This rulemaking was initiated in response to a 
petition from American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

DATES: This rule is effective August 14, 2002. Optional early 
compliance with the changes made in this final rule is permitted 
beginning August 14, 2001. Any petitions for reconsideration of this 
final rule must be received by NHTSA not later than September 28, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket 
number for this action and be submitted to: Administrator, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., 
Washington, DC 20590. Copies of the Final Regulatory Evaluation for 
this rule can be obtained from: 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. The Docket is closed on Federal holidays.

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, specifying equipment and performance 
requirements appropriate for two-wheeled and three-wheeled motorcycles.
    Among other requirements, the motorcycle manufacturer must be sure 
that each motorcycle meets requirements under the conditions specified 
in S6 of the Standard and the test procedures and sequence specified in 
S7. Two of the tests specified in S7 are the fade and recovery test and 
the water recovery test.
    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). As a check test, three baseline stops \1\ 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 then 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 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.\2\ Honda 
requested these

[[Page 42614]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Prior to submitting that petition for rulemaking, Honda 
petitioned for a temporary exemption for its motorcycle. In a 
Federal Register notice dated October 7, 1997 (62 FR 52372) (No DOT 
Docket No.), 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. The one-year exemption expired on September 
1, 1998.
    Honda was granted additional temporary exemptions from the above 
specified Standard No. 122 provisions until September 1, 1999 (63 FR 
65272, November 25, 1998) (Docket No. NHTSA-98-4275; Notice 2); 
September 1, 2000 (See 64 FR 44263, August 13, 1999) (Docket No. 
NHTSA 99-5698; Notice 2) and until December 1, 2001 (See 66 FR 2046, 
January 10, 2001) (Docket No. NHTSA 2000-8090; Notice 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. When 
Standard No. 122 was first promulgated, all 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 applied to both the front and the rear 
brakes. The way in which brake forces are apportioned between them 
depends on whether the hand lever or the foot pedal is used. For 
example, if the motorcyclist applies only the hand lever, the 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 letter dated March 16, 1999, NHTSA granted Honda's petition 
for rulemaking.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On November 17, 1999, we published in the Federal Register (64 FR 
626220) (DOT Docket No. NHTSA-99-6472) a notice of proposed rulemaking 
to amend 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 explained why we did not propose to 
completely eliminate a minimum braking force for the hand lever and for 
the foot pedal, and why we believed there are benefits to specifying 
lower minimum hand lever and foot pedal forces.

Determination of Minimum Hand Lever and Foot Pedal Forces

    We provided the following explanation of how we recalculated the 
fade recovery (S5.4.3) and the water recovery (S5.7.2) test 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 proposed to revise the limits 
to correspond with the proposed minimum lever and pedal brake forces.
    We noted that 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.
    We proposed 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 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.
    For the proposed 25 Newton (5.6 pounds) foot pedal minimum, we 
proposed as limits plus 110 Newtons (24.7 pounds) and minus 25 Newtons 
(5.6 pounds). For the proposed 10 Newton (2.3 pounds) hand lever 
minimum, we proposed as limits plus 125 Newtons (28.1 pounds) and minus 
10 Newtons (2.3 pounds).
    We stated our belief that these limits more appropriately reflect 
the corresponding minimum lever and pedal efforts proposed for the 
baseline check stops.

[[Page 42615]]

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

    In the NPRM, we cited as an important reason for retaining minimum 
braking forces, the fact 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 the NPRM, we sought 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.
    We stated that for motorcycles using state-of-the-art technologies, 
we foresee a continuing trend towards lower braking forces. We stated 
our belief 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 the NPRM are for a deceleration rate of 10 
to 11 fps2 and would therefore always be greater than the 
lever and pedal forces needed for the onset of braking.

International Harmonization Issues

    In the NPRM, we cited information from the United Nations' Economic 
Commission for Europe (ECE) and Dr. Nicholas Rogers, Secretary General 
of the International Motorcycle Manufacturers' Association (in Geneva). 
We stated our understanding 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. For 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

    In the NPRM, we noted that eliminating minimum hand lever and foot 
pedal forces might 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 specifically sought 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 noted 
that increasing numbers of motorcyclists are older persons (older than 
65 years of age) and women, population groups which 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 therefore proposed to restore the removed language.

Leadtime

    We recommended that the proposed amendments, if made final, take 
effect one year after the publication of the final rule. We stated our 
belief that manufacturers were already making motorcycles that can meet 
the proposed minimum braking forces. In the event changes in design or 
manufacturing procedures are necessary, we stated our belief that 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.

Public Comments and NHTSA's Response

    In response to the NPRM, we received comments from American Honda 
Motor (Honda), American Suzuki Corporation (Suzuki), Kawasaki Motors 
Corporation (Kawasaki), and from the Motorcycle Industry Council (the 
Council). Each commenter supported our proposal to lower the minimum 
hand lever force and minimum foot pedal force for the fade recovery and 
water recovery tests. Specifically, the Council stated that the 
``amendment will facilitate the manufacture of motorcycles with linked, 
combined, or proportional brake systems.''
    However, no commenter supported our proposal to change the 
allowable range of hand lever and foot pedal forces for the fifth 
recovery stop. The commenters stated that in conducting compliance 
testing, they found that the average baseline check forces are 
significantly higher than the required minimum forces. Honda, Kawasaki, 
and Suzuki provided data showing that it is possible that some 
motorcycles certified to Standard No. 122 (as presently specified) may 
not be able to meet the new force requirements for the fifth recovery 
stop proposed in the NPRM. The Council wrote that if NHTSA's concern 
were with the matter of a negative force value, language could be added 
to S5.4.3 and S5.7.2 to provide that the foot pedal force and hand 
lever force is within * * * ``but not less than 0 pounds'' * * *, which 
the Council suggested would address the problem.
    For more background information on the motorcycle manufacturers' 
concerns about the proposed force requirements for the fifth recovery 
stop, NHTSA consulted with Dr. Nicholas Rogers of the International 
Motorcycle Manufacturers' Association (IMMA) about motorcycle fade 
recovery hand lever and pedal efforts being lower than the baseline. 
Dr. Rogers indicated in a telephone conversion that with certain types 
of friction materials used on motorcycle brake linings, there is a 
tendency of the friction between the brake lining and the disc to rise 
with temperature. This could result in a reduction of the hand lever 
and foot pedal efforts achieved during the baseline check. We found 
IMMA's information to be informative, and counter-intuitive, based on 
our knowledge of fade recovery performance on other motor vehicles.
    Fade recovery performance requirements in NHTSA's other brake 
standards (i.e., Standards Nos. 105, Hydraulic and electric brake 
systems; Standard No. 121, Air brake systems; and Standard No. 135, 
Passenger car brake systems.) are based on the premise that motor 
vehicle stopping distance tends to increase with increasing brake 
lining temperature. However, as the commenters and IMMA indicated, the 
premise is not necessarily true for all motorcycle braking systems. 
With this information, we better understand the industry's desire to 
keep the same allowable range for the hand lever and foot pedal forces 
for the fifth recovery stop. Therefore, for the fifth recovery stop, we 
are not revising the upper and lower limits of the hand lever and foot 
pedal efforts in this final rule (i.e., the

[[Page 42616]]

limits of the lever and pedal efforts remain at plus 89 Newtons (20 
pounds) and minus 44 Newtons (10 pounds) of the baseline check average 
force (See S7.6.1)). We have added a qualification to the final rule 
that the hand lever or foot pedal efforts cannot be less than 0 Newtons 
(0 pounds). We did this to avoid any possible misinterpretation that 
lever or pedal braking forces can be negative.

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 Executive Order 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 (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
    For the following reasons, NHTSA believes that this final rule will 
not have any cost effect on motorcycle manufacturers. We believe that 
all motorcycle manufacturers are already manufacturing motorcycles that 
meet the new minimum hand lever and foot pedal forces established in 
this final rule.
    Because the economic impacts of this final rule are so minimal, no 
further regulatory evaluation is necessary.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 requires us to develop an accountable process 
to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in 
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism 
implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is 
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have 
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a regulation with Federalism 
implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and 
that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides 
the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by 
State and local governments, or unless we consult with State and local 
officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
    This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. 
The reason is that this final rule applies to manufacturers of 
motorcycles, and not to States or local governments. Thus, the 
requirements of Section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply.

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 Executive Order 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 Executive Order 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 final rule will have any retroactive 
effect. We conclude that it will 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 Head of the Agency has considered the effects of this 
rulemaking action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.) and certifies that this final rule will 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 meet the new minimum braking forces 
established in this final rule, any changes made by this rule will have 
no substantive effect on small motorcycle manufacturers. The U.S. Small 
Business

[[Page 42617]]

Administration's size standards (at 13 CFR Sec. 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 final rule will 
not affect the costs of the motorcycle manufacturers considered to be 
small business entities.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will 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 final 
rule does not include 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, 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 final rule.

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 final rule does 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 
final rule 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.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

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


    In consideration of the foregoing, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards (49 CFR Part 571), is amended as set forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

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

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


Sec. 571.122  [Amended]

    2. Section 571.122 is 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 
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, plus 89 Newtons (20 pounds) and minus 
44 Newtons (10 pounds) of the fade test baseline check average force 
(S7.6.3), but not less than 0 Newtons (0 pounds).
* * * * *
    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, plus 89 Newtons (20 pounds) and 
minus 44 Newtons (10 pounds) of the water recovery baseline check 
average force (S7.10.2), but not less than 0 Newtons (0 pounds).
* * * * *
    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: August 7, 2001.
L. Robert Shelton,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 01-20428 Filed 8-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P