[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62622-62627]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-29952]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[DOT Docket No. NHTSA-99-6472]
RIN 2127-AH15
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Motorcycle Brake Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, we (NHTSA) propose to amend the Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard on motorcycle brakes by reducing the
minimum hand lever force from 5 pounds (presently specified) to 2.3
pounds and the minimum foot pedal force from 10 pounds (presently
specified) to 5.6 pounds in the fade recovery and water recovery tests.
We believe these proposals, if adopted, would facilitate the
manufacture of motorcycles with combined or ``linked'' braking systems
(where hand and foot brakes work in tandem) that do not need so much
force exerted on them to be effective. This rulemaking was initiated in
response to a petition from American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them not later than January 18, 2000.
ADDRESSES: You should mention the docket number of this document in
your comments and submit your comments in writing to: Docket
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC,
20590.
You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324. You may visit the Docket
from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical issues, you may call Mr. Joseph Scott, Office of Crash
Avoidance Standards at (202) 366-8525. His FAX number is (202) 493-
2739.
For legal issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the Chief
Counsel at (202) 366-2992. Her FAX number is (202) 366-3820.
You may send mail to both of these officials at National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC,
20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 122, Motorcycle brake
systems, (49 CFR Sec. 571.122) took effect on January 1, 1974 (see
Federal Register notice of June 16, 1972, 37 FR 1973). Standard No. 122
specifies performance requirements for motorcycle brake systems. The
purpose of the standard is to provide safe motorcycle braking
performance under normal and emergency conditions. The safety afforded
by a motorcycle's braking system is determined by several factors,
including stopping distance, linear stability while stopping, fade
resistance, and fade recovery. A safe system should have features that
both guard against malfunction and stop the vehicle if a malfunction
should occur in the normal service system. Standard No. 122 covers each
of these aspects of brake safety, establishing equipment and
performance requirements appropriate
[[Page 62623]]
for two-wheeled and three-wheeled motorcycles. Among other
requirements, the motorcycle manufacturer must be sure that each
motorcycle can meet requirements under conditions specified in S6 Test
conditions and as specified in S7 Test procedures and sequence. Two of
the tests specified in S7 are the fade and recovery test and the water
recovery test. Each test includes a baseline check test.
The baseline check is used to establish a specific motorcycle's
pre-test performance to provide a basis for comparison with post-test
performance. This comparison is intended to ensure adequate brake
performance, at reasonable lever and pedal forces, after numerous high
speed or wet condition stops. The two tests for which minimum lever and
pedal forces are specified in Standard No. 122 are the baseline checks
for fade and recovery, and for water recovery.
The fade and recovery test compares the braking performance of the
motorcycle before and after ten 60 mile per hour stops at a
deceleration of not less than 15 feet per second per second
(fps2). Three baseline stops are conducted from 30 miles per
hour at 10 to 11 fps2, with the maximum brake lever and
maximum pedal forces recorded during each stop, and averaged over the
three baseline stops. Ten 60-mile-per-hour stops are conducted at a
deceleration rate of 14 to 17 fps2, followed immediately by
five fade recovery stops from 30 miles per hour at a deceleration rate
of 10 to 11 fps2. The maximum brake pedal and lever forces
measured during the fifth recovery stop must be within plus 20 pounds
and minus 10 pounds of the baseline average maximum brake pedal and
lever forces.
The water recovery test compares the braking performance of the
motorcycle before and after the motorcycle brakes are immersed in water
for two minutes. Three baseline stops are conducted from 30 miles per
hour at 10 to 11 fps2, with the maximum brake lever and
pedal forces recorded during each stop, and averaged over the three
baseline stops. The motorcycle brakes are then immersed in water for
two minutes, followed immediately by five water recovery stops from 30
miles per hour at a deceleration rate of 10 to 11 fps2. The
maximum brake pedal and lever forces measured during the fifth recovery
stop must be within plus 20 pounds and minus 10 pounds of the baseline
average maximum brake pedal force and the lever force.
American Honda Motor Co., Inc. Petition for Rulemaking
In a submission dated November 3, 1997, American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc. (Honda) petitioned us to amend Standard No. 122 to eliminate the
minimum hand lever force of 5 pounds and the minimum foot pedal force
of 10 pounds for the fade recovery and water recovery tests. Honda
requested these changes in order to facilitate the U.S. sale of the
Honda CBR1100XX, a high performance motorcycle, and to avoid having to
manufacture two separate versions of the vehicle, one for the United
States and another for Europe. Honda's stated rationale for the
proposed changes was to provide the motorcycle rider with a more linear
braking lever input force, so that the safety advantages of the
CBR1100XX Combined Brake System (CBS) can be fully utilized. The safety
advantages cited were enhanced motorcycle stability and decreased
stopping distance. Honda stated that the CBS provides the advantages by
applying braking to both wheels when either the hand lever or the foot
pedal is applied.
In its petition, Honda stated that: ``when Standard No. 122 was
originally drafted, it was clearly based on motorcycle independent
front and rear brake systems, and did not anticipate or fully address
the current generation of relatively advanced braking systems.'' Honda
explained that the CBS allows the rider to apply the brakes to both
wheels by activating either the hand lever or the foot pedal. In the
past (and when Standard No. 122 was first promulgated), motorcycles
used independent controls, i.e., the hand lever controlled the front
brakes and the foot pedal controlled the rear brakes. On the CBR1100XX,
in contrast, the brake forces are proportioned to both the front and
the rear brakes depending on whether the hand lever or the foot pedal
is used. For example, if the motorcyclist applies only the hand lever,
a greater portion of the braking occurs at the front wheel. Similarly,
if the motorcyclist applies only the foot pedal, most of the braking
will occur at the rear wheel. These results are achieved by using
multi-piston brake calipers at each wheel, which can be partially or
fully applied, depending on whether the hand lever or the foot pedal is
applied.
Honda stated that the requested amendments to Standard No. 122 are
needed because of the gradual reduction in the motorcycle operator
force levels (in advanced designs such as the CBR1100XX) needed for
brake actuation. Honda explained that reductions in force levels are
possible because of technological advances such as better brake pads,
rotor designs and materials; better brake hose materials; stiffer
caliper designs and attachments; improved motorcycle tire design,
construction, and compounds; and the CBS. Honda asserts that its CBS
represents a technological improvement for motorcycles. With its new
system, motorcycle operator control and braking characteristics are
similar to those of an automobile driver, i.e., one input results in
braking at all wheels.
Honda also stated that a minimum lever or pedal force is not
required in the European motorcycle regulation, ECE Regulation 78, and
that no related safety problems or ``excessively sensitive brakes''
have been reported in Europe or elsewhere. Honda stated its belief that
the elimination of a minimum force requirement in Standard No. 122
would increase global harmonization.
In a letter dated July 13, 1998, Honda amended its petition,
requesting that, in Standard No. 122, the minimum hand lever force be
reduced to 10 Newtons (2.3 pounds) and the minimum foot pedal force be
reduced to 25 Newtons (5.6 pounds).
In a Federal Register notice dated October 7, 1997 (62 FR 52372),
we granted Honda a temporary exemption from the following Standard No.
122 provisions for the CBS100XX motorcycle: S5.4.1 Baseline check--
minimum and maximum pedal forces, S5.4.2 Fade, S54.3 Fade recovery,
S5.7.2 Water recovery test, and S6.10 Brake actuation forces. Honda was
granted a second one-year exemption from those provisions in a Federal
Register notice of November 25, 1998 (63 FR 65272). The second one-year
exemption expired on September 1, 1999.
In a letter dated March 16, 1999 NHTSA granted Honda's petition for
rulemaking.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In this notice, we propose amending Standard No. 122 by reducing
the minimum hand lever force to 10 Newtons (2.3 pounds), and reducing
the minimum foot pedal force to 25 Newtons (5.6 pounds). We also
explain why we are not proposing the complete elimination of a minimum
braking force for the hand lever and the foot pedal, and why we believe
there are benefits to specifying lower minimum hand lever and foot
pedal forces.
Determination of Minimum Hand Lever and Foot Pedal Forces
The following explains how we have recalculated the fade recovery
(S5.4.3) and the water recovery (S5.7.2) test
[[Page 62624]]
ranges to take into account the lower minimum hand lever and foot pedal
forces. As earlier noted, the fade recovery and the water recovery
tests include a range within which the hand lever and foot pedal forces
must be for the fifth recovery stop. At present, Standard No. 122
specifies a 30-pound range with upper and lower limits of plus 20
pounds to minus 10 pounds, respectively, of the baseline check average
force obtained from conducting the baseline checks. We propose to
revise the limits to correspond with the proposed minimum lever and
pedal brake forces.
Standard No. 122 was developed using the ``Report of the Motorcycle
Committee and Brake Committee''; July 1969 from the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE). For foot pedals, the current lower limit
value specified, minus 10 pounds, is based on the minimum foot pedal
force level required for the brake actuation forces for the baseline
check stops. Since the baseline check average for the foot pedal force
is required to be at least 10 pounds, a lower limit of minus 10 pounds,
therefore, allows the pedal force achieved during the fifth recovery
stop to be zero pounds. Similarly, the baseline check average for the
hand lever force is required to be at least five pounds. However,
within the specified range of plus 20 pounds and minus 10 pounds, the
hand lever force for the fifth recovery stop could theoretically be as
low as minus five pounds. It is physically impossible for the lever
force to be less than zero. Thus, the practical range of the hand lever
force for the fifth recovery is reduced from 30 pounds to 25 pounds.
For hand lever forces of 10 pounds or more achieved during the baseline
check stop, the range for the resulting forces during the fifth
recovery stop would be 30 pounds.
In this NPRM, we propose to maintain this 30-pound range in the
braking forces. The 30-pound range in metric measurement is 135
Newtons. For the hand lever forces, different upper and lower values
for the range are proposed to ensure that the force in the fifth
recovery stop could not be specified as less than zero Newtons. Taking
into consideration the proposed reductions in the minimum foot pedal
and hand lever forces for the baseline check stops, we have proposed
revised upper and lower limits accordingly, so that the forces obtained
in the fifth recovery stop could not be theoretically less than zero
Newtons. We propose the following limits:
For the proposed 25 Newton (5.6 pounds) foot pedal minimum, we propose
as limits plus 110 Newtons (24.7 pounds) and minus 25 Newtons (5.6
pounds); and
For the proposed 10 Newton (2.3 pounds) hand lever minimum, we propose
as limits plus 125 Newtons (28.1 pounds) and minus 10 Newtons (2.3
pounds).
We believe that these limits more appropriately reflect the
corresponding minimum lever and pedal efforts proposed for the baseline
check stops.
Striking a Balance between Mature and State-of-the-Art Technologies
One important reason for retaining minimum braking forces is that
motorcycles are still being manufactured that do not have the linked
braking system found on the Honda CBR1100XX. For model year 1999,
cable-actuated brakes and drum brakes (the predominant technology at
the time Standard No. 122 was issued) continue to be used on many new
motorcycles. In this rulemaking, we seek a common ground between the
old and new technologies, ensuring that Standard No. 122's safety
requirements remain applicable to motorcycles manufactured with mature
technology, but are flexible enough to ensure that motorcycles
manufactured with new technology meet the need for safety. Maintaining
a minimum hand lever and foot pedal force will ensure that motorcycles
using mature technology will not have problems with overly sensitive
brakes.
For motorcycles using state-of-the-art technologies, we foresee a
continuing trend towards lower braking forces. We believe that in the
future, electronic braking technology could become commercially
available on motorcycles. That application might allow motorcyclists to
stop their motorcycles using less hand lever or foot pedal force. Even
with these trends toward lower brake forces, the minimum forces
proposed in this rulemaking are for a deceleration rate of 10 to 11
fps\2\ and would therefore always be greater than the lever and pedal
forces needed for the onset of braking.
International Harmonization Issues
Based on information obtained from the United Nations' Economic
Commission for Europe (ECE) and Dr. Nicholas Rogers, Secretary General
of the International Motorcycle Manufacturers' Association (in Geneva),
we understand that minimum hand lever or foot pedal forces are not
required in ECE Regulation 78. However, even though minimum forces are
not specified in the European regulation, that does not mean that
current production European motorcycles' braking systems are activated
with extremely low lever or pedal forces. As an example, on a European
version of the Honda CBR1100XX, the minimum hand lever force measured
for the fade and water recovery tests is 4.6 pounds, a force close to
the 5 pound hand lever force minimum presently in Standard No. 122.
Human Factors Issues
Eliminating minimum hand lever and foot pedal forces may raise a
human factors concern for American riders who are not accustomed to the
lower hand and foot forces that European motorcyclists have
experienced. We seek specific public comment on this issue. With regard
to lower minimum forces, however, many motorcyclists have noted that
reduced hand lever and foot pedal braking forces may result in better
control, a safety benefit. We also note that increasing numbers of
motorcyclists are older persons (older than 65 years of age) and women,
population groups who may welcome the availability of motorcycles with
linked braking systems and the reduced braking inputs required at the
lever and the pedal. As earlier noted, linked braking systems such as
Honda's CBS can balance the undesired handling and braking
characteristics of ``sensitive brakes'' by applying the brakes at both
wheels when either the lever or pedal is applied.
Other Rulemaking Issues
Finally, our review of Standard No. 122, disclosed that the
introductory text to S6 , Test conditions, had been inadvertently
removed. We are proposing to restore the removed language, provided in
the proposed regulatory text that follows.
Leadtime
We propose that the proposed amendments, if made final, would take
effect one year after the publication of the final rule. We believe
that manufacturers are already making motorcycles that can meet the
proposed minimum braking forces. In the event changes in design or
manufacturing procedures are necessary, we believe one year would be
enough lead time for industry to make any necessary changes. Motorcycle
manufacturers would be given the option of complying immediately with
the new requirements.
[[Page 62625]]
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action''
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed
under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' Further, we have
determined that this action is not ``significant'' within the meaning
of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures. Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
For the following reasons, NHTSA believes that this proposal, if
made final, would not have any cost effect on motorcycle manufacturers.
We believe that all motorcycle manufacturers are manufacturing
motorcycles that meet the new minimum hand lever and foot pedal forces
proposed in this NPRM.
Because the economic impacts of this proposal are so minimal, no
further regulatory evaluation is necessary.
Executive Order 12612
We have analyzed this proposal in accordance with Executive Order
12612 (``Federalism''). We have determined that this proposal does not
have sufficient Federalism impacts to warrant the preparation of a
federalism assessment.
Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by us.
This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866. It does not involve
decisions based on health risks that disproportionately affect
children.
Executive Order 12778
Pursuant to Executive Order 12778, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' we
have considered whether this proposed rule would have any retroactive
effect. We conclude that it would not have such an effect. Under 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The Administrator has considered the effects of this rulemaking
action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and
certifies that this proposal would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual statement
that is the basis for this certification is that since all motorcycle
manufacturers, including small manufacturers, are already manufacturing
motorcycles that would meet the new minimum braking forces proposed in
this notice of proposed rulemaking, any changes made by this proposed
rule would have no substantive effect on small motorcycle
manufacturers. The U.S. Small Business Administration's size standards
(at 13 CFR 121.201) defines a small motorcycle manufacturer (under
Standard Industrial Classification Code 3711``Motor Vehicles and
Passenger Car Bodies'') as a business operating primarily in the United
States that has fewer than 1,000 employees. Accordingly, the agency
believes that this proposal, if made final, would not affect the costs
of the motorcycle manufacturers considered to be small business
entities.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed this proposal for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have any
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This
proposal does not propose any new information collection requirements.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
[[Page 62626]]
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
After conducting a search of available sources, we have determined
that there are no available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards that we can use in this notice of proposed rulemaking.
Unfunded Mandates
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base
year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
if we publish with the final rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted.
For the reasons stated above, this proposal would not result in
costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. Thus, this
proposal is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA.
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Comments
How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
How Can I be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.)
Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in
developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider
that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are
indicated above in the same location.
You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments
on the Internet, take the following steps:
1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
2. On that page, click on ``search.''
3. On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four-
digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example:
If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type ``1234.''
After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may
download the comments.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that the Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR part 571), be amended as set
forth below.
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.122 would be amended by revising S5.4.3, revising
S5.7.2, adding S6., and revising the first sentence of S6.10 to read as
follows:
Sec. 571.122 Standard No. 122; Motorcycle braking systems.
* * * * *
S5.4.3. Fade recovery. Each motorcycle shall be capable of making
[[Page 62627]]
five recovery stops with a pedal force that does not exceed 400 Newtons
(90 pounds), and a hand lever force that does not exceed 245 Newtons
(55 pounds) for any of the first four recovery stops and that for the
fifth recovery stop, is within, for the foot pedal force, plus 110
Newtons (24.7 pounds) and minus 25 Newtons (5.6 pounds) and, for the
hand lever force, plus 125 Newtons (28.1 pounds), and minus 10 Newtons
(2.3 pounds) of the fade test baseline check average force (S7.6.3).
* * * * *
S5.7.2 Water recovery test. Each motorcycle shall be capable of
making five recovery stops with a pedal force that does not exceed 400
Newtons (90 pounds), and hand lever force that does not exceed 245
Newtons (55 pounds), for any of the first four recovery stops, and that
for the fifth recovery stop, is within, for the foot pedal force, plus
110 Newtons (24.7 pounds) and minus 25 Newtons (5.6 pounds) and, for
the hand lever force, plus 125 Newtons (28.1 pounds) and minus 10
Newtons (2.3 pounds) of the water recovery baseline check average force
(S7.10.2).
* * * * *
S6 Test conditions. The requirements of S5 shall be met under the
following conditions. Where a range of conditions is specified, the
motorcycle shall be capable of meeting the requirements at all points
within the range.
* * * * *
S6.10 Brake actuation forces. Except for the requirements of the
fifth recovery stop in S5.4.3 and S5.7.2 (S7.6.3 and S7.10.2), the hand
lever force is not less than 10 Newtons (2.3 pounds) and not more than
245 Newtons (55 pounds) and the foot pedal force is not less than 25
Newtons (5.6 pounds) and not more than 400 Newtons (90 pounds). * * *
* * * * *
Issued on: November 10, 1999.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Acting Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-29952 Filed 11-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
