[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65667-65676]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-28943]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[DOT Docket No. NHTSA-03-15073]
RIN 2127-AI67


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Motorcycle Controls and 
Displays

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: In this document, we (NHTSA) propose two regulatory 
alternatives to amend the motorcycle controls and displays standard. 
Each alternative would require that for certain motorcycles without a 
clutch control lever, the rear brakes be controlled by a lever located 
on the left handlebar. We also request comment on industry practices 
and plans regarding controls for motorcycles with integrated brakes. 
Finally, we propose minor changes to a table in the motorcycle controls 
and displays standard. This rulemaking responds to a petition from 
Vectrix Corporation.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that 
Docket Management receives them not later than January 20, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments in writing to: Docket 
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. 
Alternatively, you may submit your comments electronically by logging 
onto the Docket Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click 
on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to view instructions for 
filing your comments electronically. Regardless of how you submit your 
comments, you should mention the docket number of this document.
    You may call the Docket at (202) 366-9324. You may visit the Docket 
from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for Federal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr. 
Michael Pyne, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards at (202) 366-4171. 
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:

Table of Contents

I. What Does FMVSS No. 123 State at Present?
II. How Did This Rulemaking Begin?--Vectrix Petition
III. Why NHTSA Granted This Petition--Petitions for Temporary 
Exemption
    A. Aprilia's Petition for Temporary Exemption
    B. Motorcycle Crash Causation Studies
    C. Brake Control Location Study Funded by Aprilia
    D. Search of NHTSA's Consumer Complaint Database
IV. The Regulatory Alternatives for Rear Brake Control Location
    A. First Alternative
    B. Second Alternative
    1. How a ``Scooter'' Differs From Other Motorcycles
    2. Advancing International Harmonization
    3. Supplemental Rear Brake Controls
    C. Motorcycles With Integrated Braking
    1. The Honda Petition for Temporary Exemption
    2. Supplemental Controls on Integrated Braking
    3. Request for Comments on New Developments in Integrated 
Braking
V. Minor Revisions to Table 1
VI. Leadtime
VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
    A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures
    B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    C. Executive Order 13045 (Economically Significant Rules 
Affecting Children)
    D. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    F. National Environmental Policy Act
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    J. Data Quality Guidelines
    K. Plain Language
    L. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
Proposed Regulatory Text

I. What Does FMVSS No. 123 State at Present?

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 123, Motorcycle 
controls and displays, specifies requirements for the location, 
operation, identification, and illumination of motorcycle controls and 
displays. The

[[Page 65668]]

purpose of FMVSS No. 123 is to minimize accidents caused by operator 
error in responding to the motoring environment, by standardizing 
certain motorcycle controls and displays.
    Among other requirements, FMVSS No. 123 (at S5.2.1, Table 1) 
requires the control for a motorcycle's rear brakes to be located on 
the right side of the motorcycle and be operable by the rider's right 
foot. Section S5.2.1 at Table 1 also requires the control for a 
motorcycle's front brakes to be located on the right handlebar.
    Although the rear brake control is generally operated by the 
rider's right foot, FMVSS No. 123 permits a ``motor-driven cycle'' \1\ 
to have its rear brake controlled by a lever on the left handlebar. 
FMVSS No. 123 also states that, if a motorcycle has an ``automatic 
clutch'' (i.e., a transmission which eliminates the need for a clutch 
lever) and a supplemental rear brake control (in addition to the right 
foot control), the supplemental control must be located on the left 
handlebar. If a motorcycle is equipped with a single control for both 
the front and rear brakes, that control must be located and operable in 
the same manner as a rear brake control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``a motorcycle with a motor that produces five brake 
horsepower or less'' (49 CFR section 571.3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. How Did This Rulemaking Begin?--Vectrix Petition

    In a letter dated November 4, 1998, the Vectrix Corporation of New 
Bedford, Massachusetts, manufacturers of electric scooters, petitioned 
for rulemaking to change the rear brake control requirement in FMVSS 
No. 123 to permit the ``rear brake to be actuated by the left hand for 
vehicles with an automatic or fixed ratio [single speed] 
transmission.''
    The regulatory change proposed in Vectrix's petition would result 
in any motorcycle (not just a motor-driven cycle) having its rear brake 
control on the left handlebar, as long as a clutch lever (which 
otherwise would have to be placed on the left handlebar) was not 
present. Vectrix stated the following about motorcycles without clutch 
levers:

[T]he left hand of the rider is free to operate a brake lever, 
making the foot pedal mechanism unnecessary. Left hand braking is 
also more desirable from the standpoint of international 
harmonization, since motorcycles and scooters with automatic or 
fixed ratio transmissions sold in Europe and Asia have rear brake 
controls mounted on the left handlebar. The rear brake pedal 
required for sale in the United States would not meet with much 
acceptance in European and Asian markets, and manufacturers seeking 
to sell products both domestically and abroad face the unnecessary 
complication of producing two separate models.

    In a letter dated August 29, 2002, NHTSA granted Vectrix's petition 
for rulemaking.

III. Why NHTSA Granted This Petition--Petitions for Temporary Exemption

    NHTSA decided to grant Vectrix's petition for rulemaking in light 
of a number of recent petitions we have received requesting temporary 
exemption from the rear brake location requirement of FMVSS No. 123. 
Since 1999, we have granted several petitions for temporary exemption 
from the brake control location requirements.\2\ These petitions have 
come from manufacturers of scooters with automatic transmissions and 
handlebar-mounted brake controls, which is a common arrangement for 
scooters sold in Europe, Asia, and other parts of the world outside of 
the United States. These manufacturers wished to sell their scooters in 
the United States but were prevented from doing so by the requirement 
that motorcycles be equipped with a right foot control for the rear 
brake. Their scooters would be able to meet all other Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards applicable to motorcycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ (1) Aprilia: Leonardo 150 sport (64 FR 44264, 8/13/99); 
Scarabeo 150 touring, reissued (65 FR 1225, 01/07/00); Habana 150 
cruiser (66 FR 59519, 11/28/01).
    (2) Vectrix: Electric scooter (64 FR 45585, 8/20/99).
    (3) Italjet S.p.A.: Torpedo 125, Formula 125, Millenium 125, and 
Millenium 150 (64 FR 58127, 10/28/99).
    (4) Piaggio: Vespa ET4 125 and 150 (65 FR 64741, 10/30/00).
    (5) Honda: NSS250 (65 FR 69130, 11/15/00); FJS600 (66 FR 59519, 
11/28/01).
    (6) Rex Products, Inc. dba Bajaj USA: Saffire 90cc (66 FR 39222, 
7/27/01).
    Grant of these petitions has allowed the manufacturers to sell 
up to 2500 of each noncomplying scooter in the United States during 
the two-year period of exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Aprilia's Petition for Temporary Exemption

    Aprilia S.p.A. of Noale, Italy, was the first manufacturer to 
petition for a temporary exemption from S5.2.1 (Table 1) of FMVSS No. 
123. For the rear brakes, Aprilia's Leonardo 150 motorcycle had a left 
handlebar control, not the right foot control specified in FMVSS No. 
123. Aprilia petitioned to be permitted to use the left handlebar as 
the location for the rear brake control for the Leonardo 150. The 
Leonardo's 150 cc engine produces more than the five horsepower maximum 
permitted for motor-driven cycles, so that it could not have its rear 
brake controlled by a lever on the left handlebar. According to 
Aprilia, the frame of the Leonardo ``has not been designed to mount a 
right foot operated brake pedal, which is a sensitive pressure point 
able to apply considerable stress to the frame, causing failure due to 
fatigue * * *'' Aprilia, as a motor vehicle manufacturer new to the 
U.S. market, stated that it ``intends to begin sales into the United 
States for market testing purposes during the 1999 sales year and would 
like to present a model line including the Leonardo 150 motorcycle.'' 
Without NHTSA's grant of a temporary exemption from S5.2.1, of FMVSS 
No. 123, Aprilia would not have been able to sell the vehicle in the 
United States. Aprilia requested an exemption for calendar years 1999 
and 2000.

B. Motorcycle Crash Causation Studies

    When NHTSA received Aprilia's petition, there was little current 
information available on motorcycle crashes with adequate detail to 
identify important issues such as to what extent riders' unfamiliarity 
with motorcycle controls results in crashes. Earlier studies in the 
area of motorcycle crash causation indicated that ineffective use of 
brakes is a problem area for crash-involved motorcyclists. NHTSA's 1981 
Report on Motorcycle Accident Causation (DOT-HS-805-862), which is 
still the most comprehensive study of motorcycle crashes, cites lack of 
rider experience with the motorcycle as an important cause of crashes. 
Lack of rider experience may include unfamiliarity with the controls. 
The report's in-depth review of 900 cases showed that riders lacked 
emergency braking skills, used front and rear brakes together in only 
17 percent of the crashes and used the rear brake alone in 18.5 percent 
of the crashes. After reviewing crash information and conducting 
interviews, the report concluded that riders failed to use basic 
motorcycle riding skills during emergencies. The report suggested that 
the most obvious non-regulatory solution to riders' poor brake 
application skills was for riders to gain more experience and training 
for emergencies.
    In a 1998 paper titled ``Motorcycle Braking Controls--An Ergonomic 
Dilemma,'' \3\ Rudolph G. Mortimer of the University of Illinois, 
Urbana-Champaign, pointed out that in the instant of an emergency, 
riders often do not use the front brake effectively. Mortimer concluded 
that motorcyclists often favored the rear, foot-operated

[[Page 65669]]

brake in normal driving and that it was therefore not surprising that 
they mostly used the rear brake when a crash was imminent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Proceedings of the Silicon Valley Ergonomics Conference and 
Exposition, ErgoCon '98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These research reports provided valuable information in an area 
where reliable data are scarce. However, it is not clear from the 
reports or any other available literature whether the reliance of 
riders on the rear brake in emergencies has anything to do with the 
placement of the rear brake control. More specifically, the reports did 
not add to our understanding whether lack of standardization of the 
controls caused rider error in emergencies, or if overall unfamiliarity 
with the motorcycle was the more important factor in crashes.
    The agency is addressing other motorcycle safety issues by issuing 
a Motorcycle Safety Program (January 2003), which calls for new program 
actions to supplement existing initiatives to reduce the number of 
motorcycle fatalities and injuries. Motorcyclist fatalities have 
increased from 2,116 in 1997 to 3,181 in 2001, an increase of over 50 
percent. The Motorcycle Safety Program may be viewed at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle.

C. Brake Control Location Study Funded by Aprilia

    Because the available studies did not show a connection between 
rear brake control location and crashes, before we granted Aprilia's 
petition for temporary exemption for the Leonardo 150, we asked Aprilia 
to comment on our concern that a left hand rear brake control on a 
vehicle that is more powerful than a motor-driven cycle may confuse 
riders, resulting in crashes. As earlier stated, the purpose of FMVSS 
No. 123 is to ``minimize accidents caused by operator error in 
responding to the motoring environment, by standardizing certain 
motorcycle controls and displays.'' Our concern was that differing rear 
brake control locations may contribute to unfamiliarity with a 
motorcycle's controls and thus degrade a rider's overall braking 
reaction beyond what would exist on a motorcycle with a conventionally 
configured (right foot operable) control.
    Aprilia responded by hiring Carter Engineering of Franklin, 
Tennessee, to conduct a study comparing braking reaction times of 
riders on an Aprilia scooter without a foot brake and a conventional 
scooter with a foot brake. The report on that effort, ``Motor Scooter 
Braking Control Study'' (Report No. CE-99-APR-05, May 1999), may be 
reviewed at the Department of Transportation's Docket at http://dms.dot.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-98-4357.
    In the Carter Engineering study, test subjects (adults test-riding 
the scooters) compared rear braking on a Leonardo 150 with a Yamaha XC-
125 Riva with a conventional foot-operated rear brake. The two test 
scooters were arranged side-by-side facing a traffic signal light 
positioned several yards away at approximately eye level. Test subjects 
with varying degrees of motorcycle riding experience were selected 
randomly from among dealership employees and customers. Each subject 
simulated ``riding'' both models, which were stationary on their center 
stands during the testing. The test subjects responded to the traffic 
signal by activating the brakes whenever a red light was observed. The 
subjects' braking reaction times were measured electronically.
    The study concluded that the subjects' braking response times on 
the Leonardo were shorter on average than those measured on the Yamaha 
scooter with conventional right-foot mounted brake controls. Aprilia 
commented that ``[o]verall, the test subjects' reaction times on the 
Leonardo were approximately 20 percent quicker than their reaction 
times on the conventional motorcycle.'' Aprilia stated its belief that 
``a less complex braking arrangement like that of the Leonardo will 
improve rider reaction in an emergency situation.''
    We note that the test subjects, selected at a franchised dealer of 
Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki and Kawasaki motorcycles, were either employees 
or customers of the dealership. As such, all test subjects presumably 
have experience in riding motorcycles or scooters, and are probably not 
novice riders. We have no indication of how much the test subjects knew 
about the study, or whether they were informed of what would be the 
desired braking results, from Aprilia's and Carter Engineering's 
viewpoint.
    Nevertheless, Aprilia did provide some evidence, in the form of the 
Carter Engineering report, showing that American riders do not appear 
to hesitate in using a left handlebar-mounted rear brake control and 
that riders may actually gain some benefit in their braking response 
time. Based in part on the Carter Engineering study, we granted the 
Aprilia petition, interpreting the Carter Engineering report as an 
indication that the Leonardo 150 rider's braking response was not 
likely to be degraded by the different placement of the brake controls, 
thus addressing our main safety concern and meeting the statutory 
requirement for grant of an exemption.

D. Search of NHTSA's Consumer Complaint Database

    As an additional measure to determine whether there is a safety-
related problem with placement of the motorcycle rear brake control, we 
conducted a search of the NHTSA database of consumer complaints, 
recalls, and service bulletins to look for problems arising from 
motorcycle brake controls. We found only one complaint since 1995 
directly relating to brake controls. In that complaint, the owner of a 
model year 1997 touring motorcycle complained that the right foot brake 
was in a ``somewhat awkward position,'' requiring the rider to rotate 
his ankle too far downward to achieve effective brake activation. 
Although FMVSS No. 123 specifies for the rear brake control, downward 
motion for the operator's right foot, the range of motion to actuate 
motorcycle foot brakes is not an aspect of performance regulated in 
FMVSS No. 123.

IV. The Regulatory Alternatives for Rear Brake Control Location

    With the motorcycle crash causation studies and Carter Engineering 
tests as background, we propose two regulatory alternatives for the 
rear brake control location. After considering the comments on this 
proposal, we will adopt one of the alternatives in the final rule. The 
first alternative would require the rear brake control to be located on 
the left handlebar for any motorcycle that lacks a clutch, regardless 
of the motorcycle's configuration. The second alternative would require 
the left handlebar location only for clutchless motorcycles that are 
``scooters,'' a newly defined subset of motorcycles. Under either 
alternative, all other motorcycles would meet present FMVSS No. 123 
rear brake location requirements that the rear brake is operated by a 
right foot control.

A. First Alternative

    We propose the following as the first alternative: FMVSS No. 123 
would specify two brake control configurations. The factor determining 
which of the two configurations the motorcycle manufacturer must use 
would be determined by whether the motorcycle is equipped with a clutch 
lever. Motorcycles with a clutch lever would be required to have the 
rear brake control on the right side operated by the rider's right 
foot. Motorcycles without a clutch lever would be required to have the 
rear brake control on the left handlebar and would have the option of

[[Page 65670]]

a supplemental control on the right side operated by the rider's right 
foot. For the front brake control, FMVSS No. 123 would continue to 
require a lever on the right handlebar in all cases.
    If FMVSS No. 123 is amended in accordance with the first regulatory 
alternative, the present optional configuration allowed on motor-driven 
cycles (presently specified in FMVSS No. 123's Table 1, Column 2, Item 
11) would become mandatory on any motorcycle without a clutch lever. 
Motorcycles without a clutch control include those with automatic 
transmissions, single speed motorcycles, and possibly in the future, 
motorcycles with manual transmissions but automatic clutches.
    Regarding motorcycles with automatic transmissions, FMVSS No. 123 
at S5.2.1 presently states: ``If a motorcycle with an automatic clutch 
is equipped with a supplemental rear brake control, the control shall 
be located on the left handlebar.'' Under the first alternative 
proposal, this requirement would be modified because, on motorcycles 
with automatic transmissions, manufacturers may wish to provide a right 
foot control in addition to the left handlebar control for the rear 
brake. In effect, the brake control configuration for automatic 
transmission motorcycles would remain exactly the same as FMVSS No. 123 
presently specifies, but the right foot control, rather than the left 
handlebar control, would be considered the supplemental control.

B. Second Alternative

    For the second alternative, we propose a regulatory approach for 
the U.S. similar to what is already specified in European countries and 
in Japan. We propose that FMVSS No. 123 require that scooters without 
manual clutch levers have their rear brake control located on the left 
handlebar. This alternative would define ``scooter'' as a subset of 
motorcycles. We propose to use the ``platform'' on a motorcycle as the 
characteristic distinguishing ``scooters'' from ``motorcycles.'' As 
further explained below, the ECE regulation allows the left handlebar 
location that we propose to require under this alternative. Specifying 
the left handlebar location for the rear brake control would maintain 
the highest degree of international harmonization.
1. How a ``Scooter'' Differs From Other ``Motorcycles''
    Scooters can be distinguished from other motorcycles by a number of 
design characteristics. First, they have a step-through frame 
architecture that leaves the space directly in front of the rider's 
seat largely open to allow the rider to mount the seat without having 
to swing a leg over it. In contrast, other motorcycles almost always 
have their gas tanks and engines located in the space forward of the 
seat and have rigid frame members located there.
    Second, scooters are characterized by having a platform or 
floorboard for the rider's feet built into the body structure. The 
platforms are in contrast with the foot pegs used on other motorcycles. 
Some other motorcycles may be equipped with individual platforms or 
floorboards for each of the rider's feet, but the individual platforms 
usually are not part of the body structure of the motorcycle as are the 
platforms on a scooter.
    It is also noted that although they are usually smaller than full-
size motorcycles, scooters often have engines generating more than five 
horsepower. Because they may exceed five horsepower, scooters may not 
qualify as ``motor-driven cycles'' as defined in 49 CFR part 571.3.
2. Advancing International Harmonization
    Most of the scooter models which have been granted exemptions from 
FMVSS No. 123's rear brake control placement requirements are identical 
to scooter models sold in Europe and Japan. Currently, there is no 
regulatory or statutory definition in the Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards distinguishing scooters from other motorcycles. However, a 
relevant international regulation distinguishing scooters from other 
motorcycles is United Nations ECE Regulation No. 60, Addendum 59, which 
is the basis for national regulations concerning motorcycle controls in 
many European countries and Japan. ECE Regulation No. 60, Addendum 59 
includes a definition of the term ``platform'' which means ``that part 
of the vehicle on which the driver places his feet, when seated in the 
normal driving position, in the case that the vehicle is not equipped 
with riding pedals or footrests for the driver.'' The ``riding pedals'' 
refers to the pedals on mopeds, like those on bicycles, for propulsion. 
``Footrests'' are defined in the ECE standard as ``the projections on 
either side of the vehicle on which the driver places his feet when 
seated in the driving position,'' and they usually are in the form of 
foot pegs.
    ECE Regulation No. 60, Addendum 59 allows a platform-equipped 
motorcycle, i.e., a scooter, to have its rear brake controlled by a 
lever on the left handlebar if the scooter has an automatic 
transmission. If the scooter has a manual transmission, it must have a 
foot control on the right side for the rear brake.
    We note that ECE Regulation No. 60, Addendum 59 limits the use of a 
left handlebar lever for the rear brake to motorcycles which, in 
addition to having a platform, ``have a maximum design speed not 
exceeding 100 km/h.'' One hundred kilometers per hour (or 62 miles per 
hour), once was a speed beyond the capability of most scooters, but 
today many scooters can exceed it. According to information provided by 
Honda Motor Co. and Aprilia, manufacturers in Europe and Japan are not 
required by the regulations of the individual nations in which they 
market their scooters to adhere to the 100 km/h maximum design speed 
portion of the requirement for placement of the rear brake control. The 
end result has been that scooters almost universally have their rear 
brake controls located on the left handlebars (since they also have 
automatic transmissions), even if they can attain speeds in excess of 
100 km/h.
    The approach taken in the second alternative describes motorcycles 
for which temporary exemptions for rear brake control placement were 
sought because the motorcycles were constructed to meet ECE Regulation 
No. 60, Addendum 59 (except for the 100 km/h maximum speed 
requirement). The approach taken in the second regulatory alternative 
would also achieve a measure of international harmonization with 
existing global regulations that has previously been lacking.
3. Supplemental Rear Brake Controls
    Regarding supplemental rear brake controls, under the second 
alternative the present regulatory statement in S5.2.1 (``If a 
motorcycle with an automatic clutch is equipped with a supplemental 
rear brake control, the control shall be located on the left 
handlebar.'') is still applicable because most motorcycles would 
continue to have a right foot pedal to control their rear brakes, and a 
supplemental rear brake control would be located on the left handlebar 
if no clutch lever was present, as FMVSS No. 123 requires at present. 
However, under this alternative, it would be necessary to specify that, 
if a platform-type motorcycle (scooter) with an automatic transmission 
has a supplemental rear brake control, it must be a right foot pedal. 
We have proposed this change in S5.2.1 of the draft regulatory language 
of the second alternative.

[[Page 65671]]

C. Motorcycles With Integrated Braking

1. The Honda Petition for Temporary Exemption
    Among the requests for temporary exemption from FMVSS No. 123's 
right foot rear brake control requirements was one from American Honda 
Motor Company, Inc. for its NSS250 scooter, also called the ``Reflex.'' 
The NSS250 scooter is equipped with an integrated braking system which 
replaces the dedicated rear brake control with a control connected to 
the rear brake caliper but also to one piston of the multi-piston front 
caliper, thus providing partial front brake application along with rear 
brake application. In accordance with FMVSS No. 123, a separate front 
brake control on the right handlebar activates the remaining front 
caliper pistons.
    At present, FMVSS No. 123 at S5.2.1 specifies that, if provided, an 
integrated brake control must be located and operable in the same 
manner as a rear brake control. This provision addresses motorcycles 
which have only a single control for all braking functions, i.e., those 
without separate front and rear brake controls. It also addresses 
systems with two separate controls in which one of the two is a control 
that applies braking force to both brakes, as in the case of the 
NSS250.
    Under both proposed regulatory alternatives, on any motorcycle with 
a manual clutch, the control for an integrated brake system would have 
to be on the right foot pedal since that would be the required location 
of the rear brake control. For clutchless motorcycles, the first 
alternative would require that a control for an integrated brake system 
be located on the left handlebar. Under the second alternative, for 
clutchless scooters, there must be a control for an integrated brake 
system on the left handlebar. For all other clutchless motorcycles, the 
second alternative would require the integrated brake system control to 
be on the right foot pedal.
    On the Honda NSS250, for example, the integrated brake system 
control is considered the rear brake control since it acts primarily on 
the rear brake caliper and is the only rear brake control provided. The 
NSS250 and other motorcycles with integrated braking systems would be 
able to comply with either regulatory alternative.
2. Supplemental Controls on Integrated Braking Systems
    Since a motorcycle could be equipped with integrated braking as 
well as a supplemental brake control, it is necessary to specify that 
the supplemental control provide the same integrated braking effect 
that is provided by the primary rear brake control. To allow a 
supplemental rear brake control that produced a different braking 
effect than the primary rear brake control may lead to rider confusion 
or hesitation.
    To ensure that a supplemental brake control provides the same 
braking function as a primary rear brake control in cases where the 
primary control is an integrated control, we propose to add the 
following statement to S5.2.1: ``The supplemental brake control shall 
provide brake actuation identical to that provided by the required 
control of Table 1, Item 11, of this Standard.''
    Because an integrated control may be located either on the left 
handlebar or on the right foot pedal depending on whether a motorcycle 
is clutchless (first alternative) or is a clutchless scooter (second 
alternative), we believe that it is important to make the regulatory 
text definitive on this issue. In order to clarify that an integrated 
brake control must be located as if it were a rear brake control, we 
have modified the last statement in S5.2.1 under both regulatory 
alternatives as follows: ``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.'' (Italicized language is new language that 
would be added to the texts of both regulatory alternatives.)
3. Request for Comments on New Developments in Motorcycle Integrated 
Braking Systems
    Since the new type of braking system on the NSS250 has generated a 
high level of interest from members of the public, the agency seeks 
information about alternative configurations for motorcycle brake 
controls and other anticipated developments that might influence future 
brake system safety requirements. In particular, we are interested in 
finding out if integrated braking systems such as the current Honda 
system in which independent control of the front brake but not the rear 
brake remains possible, are likely to proliferate. We are also 
interested in knowing if motorcycle manufacturers are considering 
arrangements such as fully integrated brakes for which there would be 
one control for all brakes, where as in passenger automobiles and 
trucks, there are no separate controls for front and rear brakes. To 
gauge public response to some of these issues, we request responses to 
the following questions:
    (1) Should the agency anticipate an increase in the use of or the 
demand for integrated brake systems similar to those that are currently 
in production, or for systems that integrate front and rear brakes to 
an even greater extent than current systems?
    (2) Should the agency anticipate the emergence of completely 
integrated motorcycle brake systems in which separate control of front 
and rear brakes by the operator is no longer provided? If so, where 
should the single brake control be located and why?
    (3) How should FMVSS No. 123 be formulated so that it remains 
relevant if partially or fully integrated motorcycle brake systems 
become more common?
    (4) What brake control locations should FMVSS No. 123 specify now 
in order to anticipate future developments?
    (5) How should FMVSS No. 122, Motorcycle brake systems, be revised 
to accommodate integrated motorcycle brake systems? How should the 
partial service brake system test be run?
    (6) How would the emergence of completely integrated motorcycle 
brake systems facilitate harmonization of brake regulations where 
separate front and rear brake application is required?
    We would be interested in any test data, crash data, simulation 
data, or other information that would support any suggested actions in 
this area.

V. Minor Revisions to Table 1

    Column 2 of Table 1 in FMVSS No. 123 specifies motorcycle locations 
where specified controls must be placed. In three places in Column 2 of 
Table 1, the abbreviation ``do.'' (for ``ditto'') is used at present. 
The text that is replaced by ``do.'' is ``Left handlebar'' for item no. 
4, ``Horn,'' and ``Right handlebar'' for items no. 9 ``Supplemental 
engine stop'' and no. 10 ``Front wheel brake.'' Because we are 
concerned that the term ``do.'' may cause confusion, we propose to 
replace ``do.'' in the three places it appears in Column 2 of Table 1 
with the full text of the location, ``Left handlebar'' or ``Right 
handlebar,'' as appropriate.

VI. Leadtime

    We propose to make the amendments effective 12 months after the 
final rule is published, but to allow optional early compliance 30 days 
after the final rule is published. We believe that because this 
proposal would permit controls for rear motorcycle brakes to be placed 
on left motorcycle handlebars, a regulatory restriction would be 
lifted, and motorcycles that do not presently meet FMVSS No. 123 would 
be permitted. All other existing motorcycles would also meet the 
provisions of the proposed

[[Page 65672]]

rule. Public comment is sought whether 12 months would be enough lead 
time for industry to comply with the new requirements and whether to 
permit optional early compliance with the provisions of an amended 
FMVSS No. 123.

VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. 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 by 
the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.'' The rulemaking action is also not considered to 
be significant under the Department's Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
    For the following reasons, we believe that this proposal, if made 
final, would not have any cost effect on motor vehicle manufacturers. 
If made final, this rule would have no substantive effect on 
motorcycles that are already manufactured for the U.S. market. If made 
final, this rule would facilitate the import of motorcycles that do not 
meet present requirements for the location of motorcycle rear brake 
controls. If made final, this rule would have a slight economic benefit 
to manufacturers of the import motorcycles, which would not have to 
design and build separate motorcycles for the U.S. market and for 
Europe and Japan.
    Because the economic impacts of this proposal are so minimal (i.e., 
the annual effect on the economy is less than $100 million), no further 
regulatory evaluation is necessary.

B. 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 
governments, or unless we consult with State and local officials early 
in the process of developing the proposed regulation. We also may not 
issue a regulation with Federalism implications and that preempts State 
law unless we consult with State and local officials early in the 
process of developing the proposed regulation.
    This proposed rule would 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 proposed rule, if made final, would apply to 
motorcycle manufacturers, not to the States or local governments. Thus, 
the requirements of Section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to 
this proposed rule.

C. Executive Order 13045 (Economically Significant Rules Affecting 
Children)

    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 proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it 
is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866 and does not 
involve decisions based on environmental, health or safety risks that 
disproportionately affect children. This proposed rule, if made final, 
would make changes affecting only to motorcycle manufacturers. Many 
States do not permit children under 18 years of age to be licensed to 
drive motorcycles, or to be passengers on motorcycles.

D. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    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.

E. 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 would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require

[[Page 65673]]

Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for 
certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.
    The Agency Administrator 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 basis for 
this certification is that this proposal, if made final, would have no 
effect on small U.S. motorcycle manufacturers. The small manufacturers 
already manufacture motorcycles that meet the present motorcycle rear 
brake control requirements and that would met the proposed amendments 
to the rear brake control requirements.

F. 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.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    NHTSA has determined that, if made final, this proposed rule would 
not impose any ``collection of information'' burdens on the public, 
within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). This 
rulemaking action would not impose any filing or recordkeeping 
requirements on any manufacturer or any other party.

H. 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 decided to 
propose (as one of the proposed regulatory alternatives), the rear 
brake control location specified in ECE Regulation No. 60, Addendum 59, 
which allows a platform-equipped, motorcycle, i.e., a scooter, to have 
its rear brake controlled by a lever on the left handlebar if the 
scooter has an automatic transmission.

I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    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.
    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.

J. Data Quality Guidelines

    After reviewing the provisions of this NPRM pursuant to OMB's 
Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, 
Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies 
(``Guidelines'') issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
(67 FR 8452, Feb. 22, 2002) and issued in final by the Department of 
Transportation (DOT) on October 1, 2002 (67 FR 61719), NHTSA has 
determined that if made final, nothing in this rule would result in 
``information dissemination'' to the public, as that term is defined in 
the Guidelines.
    If a determination were made that public distribution of data 
resulting from this rule constituted information dissemination and was, 
therefore, subject to the OMB/DOT Guidelines, then the agency would 
review the information prior to dissemination to ascertain its utility, 
objectivity, and integrity (collectively, ``quality''). Under the 
Guidelines, any ``affected person'' who believed that the information 
ultimately disseminated by NHTSA was of insufficient quality could file 
a complaint with the agency. The agency would review the disputed 
information, make an initial determination of whether it agreed with 
the complainant and notify the complainant of its initial 
determination. Once notified of the initial determination, the affected 
person could file an appeal with the agency.

K. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language 
includes consideration of the following questions:

--Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?

--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
--What else could we do to make this rulemaking easier to understand?

    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in your comments on this NPRM.

L. 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

[[Page 65674]]

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.
    You may also submit your comments to the docket electronically by 
logging onto the Dockets Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain 
instructions for filing the document electronically.

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. Although the comments are imaged documents, 
instead of word processing documents, the ``pdf'' versions of the 
documents are word searchable.
    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.

How Does the Federal Privacy Act Apply to My Public Comments?

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

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 571.123 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, would 
be amended by revising S5.2.1 and revising table 1 to read as follows:


Sec.  571.123  Motorcyle controls and displays.

* * * * *
    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 is equipped 
with a supplemental rear brake control, the control shall be located on 
the right side, shall be operable by the operator's right foot, and 
shall provide brake actuation identical to that provided by the rear 
brake control required by 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.

[[Page 65675]]

* * * * *

    Table 1.--Motorcycle Control Location and Operation Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Location--
 Equipment Control--  Column 1       Column 2      Operation--  Column 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Manual clutch or integrated   Left handlebar...  Squeeze to disengage
 clutch and gear change.                            clutch.
2 Foot-operated gear change...  Left foot control  An upward motion of
                                                    the operator's toe
                                                    shifts transmission
                                                    toward lower
                                                    numerical gear
                                                    ratios (commonly
                                                    referred to as
                                                    ``higher gears''),
                                                    and a downward
                                                    motion toward higher
                                                    numerical gear
                                                    ratios (commonly
                                                    referred to as lower
                                                    gears''). If three
                                                    or more gears are
                                                    provided it shall
                                                    not be possible to
                                                    shift from the
                                                    highest gear
                                                    directly to the
                                                    lowest gear, or vice
                                                    versa.
3 Headlamp upper-lower beam     Left handlebar...  Up for upper beam,
 control.                                           down for lower beam.
                                                    If combined with the
                                                    headlight on-off
                                                    switch, means shall
                                                    be provided to
                                                    prevent inadvertent
                                                    actuation of the
                                                    ``off'' function.
4 Horn........................  Left handlebar...  Push to activate.
5 Turn signal lamps...........  Handlebars.......  .....................
6 Ignition....................  .................  ``Off''--counterclock
                                                    wise from other
                                                    positions.
7 Manual fuel shutoff control.  .................  Rotate to operate.
                                                    ``On'' and ``Off''
                                                    are separated by 90
                                                    degrees of rotation.
                                                    ``Off'' and
                                                    ``Reserve'' (if
                                                    provided) are
                                                    separated by 90
                                                    degrees of rotation.
                                                    Sequence order:
                                                    ``On''--``Off''--``R
                                                    eserve''.
8 Twist-grip throttle.........  Right handlebar..  Self-closing to idle
                                                    in a clockwise
                                                    direction after
                                                    release of hand.
9 Supplemental engine stop....  Right handlebar..  .....................
10 Front wheel brake..........  Right handlebar..  Squeeze to engage.
11 Rear wheel brake...........  Right foot         Depress to engage
                                 control \1\.      Squeeze to engage.
                                Left handlebar
                                 for any
                                 motorcycle
                                 without a clutch
                                 lever.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See S5.2.1 for requirements for vehicles with a single control for
  front and rear brakes, and with a supplemental rear brake control.

* * * * *
    3. In the alternative to the changes proposed by the preceding 
amendment, Section 571.123 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, 
would be amended by adding a definition of ``scooter'' in the correct 
alphabetical order to S4, by revising S5.2.1, and by revising table 1, 
to read as follows:
* * * * *
    S4. Definitions.
* * * * *
    Scooter means a motorcycle having a platform for the operator's 
feet or having footrests integrated into a platform.
* * * * *
    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. The supplemental brake 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.
* * * * *

    Table 1.--Motorcycle Control Location and Operation Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Location--
 Equipment Control--  Column 1       Column 2      Operation--  Column 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Manual clutch or integrated   Left handlebar...  Squeeze to disengage
 clutch and gear change.                            clutch.
2 Foot-operated gear change...  Left foot control  An upward motion of
                                                    the operator's toe
                                                    shifts transmission
                                                    toward lower
                                                    numerical gear
                                                    ratios (commonly
                                                    referred to as
                                                    ``higher gears''),
                                                    and a downward
                                                    motion toward higher
                                                    numerical gear
                                                    ratios (commonly
                                                    referred to as lower
                                                    gears''). If three
                                                    or more gears are
                                                    provided, it shall
                                                    not be possible to
                                                    shift from the
                                                    highest gear
                                                    directly to the
                                                    lowest, or vice
                                                    versa.
3 Headlamp upper-lower beam     Left handlebar...  Up for upper beam,
 control.                                           down for lower beam.
                                                    If combined with the
                                                    headlight on-off
                                                    switch, means shall
                                                    be provided to
                                                    prevent inadvertent
                                                    actuation of the
                                                    ``off'' function.
4 Horn........................  Left handlebar...  Push to activate.
5 Turn signal lamps...........  Handlebars
6 Ignition....................  .................  ``Off''--counterclock
                                                    wise from other
                                                    positions.

[[Page 65676]]

 
7 Manual fuel shutoff control.  .................  Rotate to operate.
                                                    ``On'' and ``Off''
                                                    are separated by 90
                                                    degrees of rotation.
                                                    ``Off'' and
                                                    ``Reserve'' (if
                                                    provided) are
                                                    separated by 90
                                                    degrees of rotation.
                                                    Sequence order:
                                                    ``On''--``Off''--``R
                                                    eserve''.
8 Twist-grip throttle.........  Right handlebar..  Self-closing to idle
                                                    in a clockwise
                                                    direction after
                                                    release of hand.
9 Supplemental engine stop....  Right handlebar..  .....................
10 Front wheel brake..........  Right handlebar..  Squeeze to engage.
11 Rear wheel brakes..........  Right foot         Depress to engage.
                                 control \1\.      Squeeze to engage.
                                Left handlebar
                                 for a motor-
                                 driven cycle and
                                 for a scooter
                                 with an
                                 automatic clutch.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See S5.2.1 for requirements for vehicles with a single control for
  front and rear brakes, and with a supplemental rear brake control.


    Issued on: November 13, 2003.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 03-28943 Filed 11-20-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P