National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. This rulemaking responds to a petition from Vectrix Corporation:

1 post / 0 new
Gman
Gman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 years 4 months ago
Joined: Monday, November 20, 2006 - 23:24
Points: 1720
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. This rulemaking responds to a petition from Vectrix Corporation:

[Federal Register: November 21, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 225)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 65667-65676]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21no03-16]
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/03-28943.htm
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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


Who's online

There are currently 0 users online.

Who's new

  • Conmac065
  • MalachiKldho
  • leastk
  • aymgoa
  • wodnik7

Support V is for Voltage