Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Motorcycle Brake Systems

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