51286 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

Column B Column A Approved critical user and location Column C Approved critical uses of use Limiting critical conditions

(c) Growers and packers who are With a reasonable expectation that one or more of the following lim- members of the California Date iting critical conditions exists: rapid fumigation is required to meet a Commission, whose facilities are critical market window, such as during the holiday season, when a located in Riverside County. buyer provides short (2 days or less) notification for a purchase, or there is a short period after harvest in which to fumigate and there is limited silo availability for using alternatives.

[FR Doc. 05–17191 Filed 8–29–05; 8:45 am] For non-legal issues, you may call Mr. C. Executive Order 13045 (Economically BILLING CODE 6560–50–U Michael Pyne, Office of Crash Significant Rules Affecting Children) Avoidance Standards at (202) 366–4171. D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice His fax number is (202) 366–7002. Reform) E. Regulatory Flexibility Act DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION For legal issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the Chief F. National Environmental Policy Act G. Paperwork Reduction Act National Highway Traffic Safety Counsel at (202) 366–2992. Her fax H. National Technology Transfer and Administration number is (202) 366–3820. Advancement Act You may send mail to both of these I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 49 CFR Part 571 officials at National Highway Traffic J. Plain Language Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., [Docket No. NHTSA–03–15073] K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) SW., Washington, DC, 20590. Regulatory Text RIN 2127–AI67 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. What Does FMVSS No. 123 Require Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Table of Contents at Present? Standards; Motorcycle Controls and I. What Does FMVSS No. 123 Require at Displays Present? Federal Motor Vehicle Safety II. How This Rulemaking Began—Granting Standard (FMVSS) No. 123, Motorcycle AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Vectrix’s Petition Controls and Displays, specifies Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)— requirements for the location, operation, The Regulatory Alternatives for Rear ACTION: Final rule. identification, and illumination of Brake Control Location motorcycle controls and displays. The A. Alternative I SUMMARY: In this document, we B. Alternative II purpose of FMVSS No. 123 is to (NHTSA) amend the Federal motor C. Supplemental Rear Brake Controls minimize accidents caused by operator vehicle safety standard on motorcycle D. Motorcycles With Integrated Brake error in responding to the motoring controls and displays to require that the Controls environment, by standardizing certain rear brake control on scooters without a 1. The Honda Petition for Temporary motorcycle controls and displays. Exemption clutch be located on the left handlebar. Among other requirements, FMVSS In doing so, we have selected the second 2. Supplemental Controls on Integrated Braking Systems No. 123 (at S5.2.1, Table 1) requires the of two alternative proposals that were control for a motorcycle’s rear brakes to set forth in a notice of proposed 3. Request for Comments on New Developments in Motorcycle Integrated be located on the right side of the rulemaking published in November Braking Systems motorcycle and be operable by the 2003. This final rule also includes IV. Comments on the NPRM and NHTSA rider’s right foot. Section S5.2.1 at Table requirements for motorcycles with Response 1 also requires the control for a single-point (combined) braking for A. Comments on Alternative I motorcycle’s front brakes to be located supplemental rear brake controls. 1. Public Comments on the right handlebar. This final rule also makes two 2. NHTSA’s Response to the Comments additional minor changes to the B. Comments on Alternative II Although the rear brake control is standard. The first change removes a 1. Public Comments generally operated by the rider’s right potentially confusing abbreviation, and 2. NHTSA’s Response to the Comments foot, FMVSS No. 123 permits a ‘‘motor- a. ECE Regulation No. 60 Definitions That driven cycle’’ 1 to have its rear brake the second change clarifies NHTSA Reviewed requirements for motorcycle controlled by a lever on the left b. Maximum Speed Characteristic handlebar. FMVSS No. 123 also states speedometer labeling. c. Other Design Characteristics that, if a motorcycle has an ‘‘automatic DATES: This final rule takes effect d. Need for an Enhanced Scooter Definition clutch’’ (i.e., a transmission which August 30, 2006. Optional compliance e. New Step-Through Architecture eliminates the need for a clutch lever) is available as of August 30, 2005. Criterion for Defining Scooters and a supplemental rear brake control Any petitions for reconsideration of Criterion for Defining Scooters C. Other Issues (in addition to the right foot control), today’s final rule must be received by 1. Single-Point (Combined) Braking the supplemental control must be NHTSA no later than October 14, 2005. 2. Supplemental Rear Brake Controls located on the left handlebar. If a ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration 3. Minor Revision to Table 1 motorcycle is equipped with a single of today’s final rule should refer to the 4. Minor Revisions to Table 3 control for both the front and rear docket number for this action and be V. Final Rule VI. Leadtime brakes, that control must be located and submitted to: Administrator, National operable in the same manner as a rear Highway Traffic Safety Administration, VII. Statutory Basis for the Final Rule VIII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices brake control. 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 20590. Regulatory Policies and Procedures 1 ‘‘A motorcycle with a motor that produces five FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) brake horsepower or less’’ (49 CFR 571.3).

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:13 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR1.SGM 30AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 51287

II. How This Rulemaking Began— conventionally configured (right foot B. Alternative II Granting Vectrix’s Petition operable) control. Aprilia responded by hiring Carter For the second alternative, we As described in the notice of Engineering of Franklin, Tennessee, to proposed a regulatory approach for the proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published conduct a study comparing braking U.S. similar to that specified in in the Federal Register (68 FR 65667) on reaction times of riders on an Aprilia European countries and in Japan. We November 21, 2003, this rulemaking scooter without a foot brake and a proposed that FMVSS No. 123 would began with NHTSA’s decision to grant conventional scooter with a foot brake. require that scooters without manual a petition for rulemaking from Vectrix The report on that effort, ‘‘Motor Scooter clutch levers have their rear brake Corporation. We granted the petition in Braking Control Study’’ (Report No. CE– control located on the left handlebar. light of a number of petitions we 99-APR–05, May 1999), may be This alternative would define ‘‘scooter’’ received requesting temporary reviewed at http://dms.dot.gov, Docket as a subset of motorcycles. We proposed exemption from the rear brake location No. NHTSA–98–4357. to use the ‘‘platform’’ on a motorcycle requirement of FMVSS No. 123, i.e., The Carter Engineering report as the characteristic distinguishing temporary exemptions from S5.2.1 appeared to show that American riders ‘‘scooters’’ from ‘‘motorcycles.’’ As (Table 1) of FMVSS No. 123. These do not seem to hesitate in using a left further explained below, the ECE petitions have come from manufacturers handlebar-mounted rear brake control regulation allows the left handlebar of scooters with automatic and that riders may actually gain some location that we proposed to require transmissions and handlebar-mounted benefit in their braking response time. under this alternative. Specifying the brake controls, which is a common Based in part on the Carter Engineering left handlebar location for the rear brake arrangement for scooters sold in Europe, study, we granted the Aprilia petition, control would result in greater Asia, and other parts of the world interpreting the Carter Engineering international harmonization. outside of the United States. These report as an indication that the manufacturers wished to sell their We also discussed how scooters can Leonardo 150 rider’s braking response scooters in the United States but were be distinguished from other was not likely to be degraded by the prevented from doing so by the motorcycles. First, we noted that different placement of the brake requirement that motorcycles be scooters have a step-through frame controls. equipped with a right foot control for architecture that leaves the space the rear brake. III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking directly in front of the rider’s seat NHTSA then focused its discussion (NPRM)—The Regulatory Alternatives largely open to allow the rider to mount on the first manufacturer, Aprilia S.p.A. for Rear Brake Control Location the seat without having to swing a leg over it. In contrast, other motorcycles of Noale, Italy, to petition for a With the motorcycle crash causation temporary exemption from S5.2.1 (Table almost always have their gas tanks and studies and Carter Engineering tests as engines located in the space forward of 1) of FMVSS No. 123. For the rear background, in a notice of proposed the seat and have rigid frame members brakes, Aprilia’s Leonardo 150 rulemaking (NPRM) published on located there. motorcycle had a left handlebar control, November 21, 2003 (68 FR 65667) [DOT not the right foot control specified in Docket No. NHTSA–03–15075], we Second, scooters are characterized by FMVSS No. 123. Aprilia petitioned to be proposed two regulatory alternatives for having platforms or floorboards for the permitted to use the left handlebar as the rear brake control location. We rider’s feet built into the body structure. the location for the rear brake control for stated that after considering the The platforms are in contrast to the foot the Leonardo 150. The Leonardo’s 150 comments on this proposal, we pegs used on other motorcycles. Some cc engine produces more than the five contemplated adopting one of the other motorcycles may be equipped horsepower maximum permitted for alternatives in the final rule. For a full with individual platforms or floorboards motor-driven cycles, so it was not description of each of the proposed for each of the rider’s feet, but the permitted to have its rear brake alternatives, please see the NPRM at 68 individual platforms usually are not controlled by a lever on the left FR pages 65,669 through 65,670. part of the body structure of the handlebar. motorcycle as are the platforms on a A. Alternative I When NHTSA received Aprilia’s scooter. petition, there was little current As the first alternative, we proposed We also noted that although they are information available on motorcycle that FMVSS No. 123 would specify two usually smaller than full-sized crashes with adequate detail to identify brake control configurations. The factor motorcycles, scooters often have engines relevant issues such as to what extent determining which of the two generating more than five horsepower. riders’ unfamiliarity with motorcycle configurations the motorcycle Because their engines may exceed five controls results in crashes. As part of manufacturer must use would be horsepower, scooters may not qualify as our consideration of the petition, we dependent on whether the motorcycle is ‘‘motor-driven cycles’’ as defined in 49 reviewed the available studies, and equipped with a clutch lever. CFR part 571.3. concluded that they did not show a Motorcycles with a clutch lever would connection between rear brake control be required to have the rear brake We also described how the approach location and crashes. Before we granted control on the right side operated by the taken in the second regulatory Aprilia’s petition for temporary rider’s right foot. Motorcycles without a alternative would achieve a measure of exemption for the Leonardo 150, we clutch lever would be required to have international harmonization with asked Aprilia to comment on our the rear brake control on the left existing global regulations that has concern that differing rear brake control handlebar and would have the option of previously been lacking. We noted that locations may contribute to a supplemental control on the right side most of the scooter models which have unfamiliarity with a motorcycle’s operated by the rider’s right foot. For the been granted exemptions from FMVSS controls and thus degrade a rider’s front brake control, FMVSS No. 123 No. 123’s rear brake control placement overall braking reaction beyond what would continue to require a lever on the requirements are identical to scooter would exist on a motorcycle with a right handlebar in all cases. models sold in Europe and Japan.

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:13 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR1.SGM 30AUR1 51288 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

C. Supplemental Rear Brake Controls brake system would be required to be on requirements. We requested responses also addressed supplemental rear brake the left handlebar. For all other to six questions and asked for test data, controls in the NPRM, noting that under motorcycles without clutches, the crash data, simulation data, or other the second alternative, the current second alternative would require the information that would support any requirement in S5.2.1 (‘‘If a motorcycle integrated brake system control to be on suggested actions in this area. with an automatic clutch is equipped the right foot pedal. On the Honda NSS250, for example, IV. Comments on the NPRM and with a supplemental rear brake control, NHTSA’s Response the control shall be located on the left the integrated brake system control is in handlebar.’’) would still be relevant effect the rear brake control since the NHTSA received comments on the because most motorcycles would integrated system acts primarily on the NPRM from the following seven parties: continue to have a right foot pedal to rear brake caliper and is the only rear American Honda Motor Company, Inc. control their rear brakes, and a brake control provided. The NSS250 (Honda); American Suzuki Motor supplemental rear brake control would and other motorcycles with integrated Corporation (Suzuki); Harley-Davidson be located on the left handlebar if no braking systems are designed such that Motor Company (Harley-Davidson), clutch lever was present. However, the motorcycles would be able to International Motorcycle Manufacturers under the second alternative, it would comply with either regulatory Association (IMMA), Peugeot be necessary to specify that, if a clutch- alternative. Motorcycles of PSA Peugeot Citroen (Peugeot); Piaggio USA, Inc., (Piaggio), less scooter has a supplemental rear 2. Supplemental Controls on Integrated and Yamaha Motor Corporation USA brake control, it must be a right foot Braking Systems pedal. (Yamaha). The comments can generally Since a motorcycle could be equipped be categorized as focusing on two major D. Motorcycles With Integrated Braking with integrated braking as well as a issues: (1) Whether manufacturers 1. The Honda Petition for Temporary supplemental brake control, it is should have discretion in locating brake Exemption necessary to specify that the controls and (2) the definition of supplemental control provide the same ‘‘scooter.’’ The issues raised in the We also addressed an issue resulting integrated braking effect that is provided public comments, and NHTSA’s from a request for temporary exemption by the primary rear brake control. response to the comments, are discussed from FMVSS No. 123’s right foot rear In cases where the primary control is below. We have also addressed several brake control requirements from an integrated control, we proposed to additional comments, primarily on American Honda Motor Company, Inc. add the following statement to S5.2.1: supplemental rear brake controls and on for its NSS250 scooter, also called the ‘‘The supplemental brake control shall motorcycles with integrated braking. ‘‘Reflex.’’ The NSS250 scooter is provide brake actuation identical to that equipped with an integrated braking provided by the required control of A. Comments on Alternative I system that replaces the dedicated rear Table 1, Item 11, of this Standard.’’ 1. Public Comments brake control with a control connected Because an integrated control may be to the rear brake caliper but also to one located either on the left handlebar or Regarding manufacturer choice in piston of the multi-piston front caliper, on the right foot pedal depending on brake control location, the commenters thus providing partial front brake whether a motorcycle is clutchless (first noted that both versions proposed in the application along with rear brake alternative) or is a clutchless scooter NPRM (i.e., Alternatives I and II), would application. In accordance with FMVSS (second alternative), we believe that it is mandate a particular control No. 123, a separate front brake control important to make the regulatory text arrangement. The commenters all stated on the right handlebar activates the clear on this issue. In order to clarify that manufacturers should be given remaining front caliper pistons. that an integrated brake control must be some discretion in the arrangement of At present, FMVSS No. 123 at S5.2.1 located as if it were a rear brake control, brake controls. The commenters differed specifies that, if provided, an integrated we proposed to modify the last on the extent to which discretion should brake control must be located and statement in S5.2.1 under both be provided. For example, Suzuki stated operable in the same manner as a rear regulatory alternatives as follows: ‘‘If a that its main concern: brake control. This provision addresses motorcycle is equipped with self- [I]s that both alternatives would mandate, motorcycles which have only a single proportioning or antilock braking rather than permit, the left handlebar rear control for all braking functions, i.e., devices utilizing a single control for brake control location for certain those without separate front and rear front and rear brakes, the control shall motorcycles. Suzuki sees no safety benefit in brake controls. It also addresses systems prohibiting any motorcycle from using the be located and operable in the same rear brake control location currently required with two separate controls in which one manner as a rear brake control, as by FMVSS No. 123 * * * Suzuki of the two is a control that applies specified in Table 1, Item 11, and in this recommends that NHTSA adopt a regulatory braking force to both brakes, as in the paragraph.’’ (Italicized language is new requirement that is based on the first case of the NSS250. language that would be added to the proposed alternative, but which permits, Under both proposed regulatory texts of both regulatory alternatives.) rather than mandates, the left handlebar alternatives, on any motorcycle with a location for the rear brake control on manual clutch, the control for an 3. Request for Comments on New motorcycles without a clutch lever. integrated brake system would be Developments in Motorcycle Integrated Harley-Davidson stated that required to be on the right foot pedal Braking Systems Alternative I is unacceptable. That since that would be the required Since the new type of braking system company does not presently sell location of the rear brake control. For on the NSS250 has generated a high motorcycles with a transmission motorcycles without clutches, the first level of interest from members of the without a clutch lever. The rear brake alternative would require that a control public, the agency sought information on Harley-Davidson motorcycles has for an integrated brake system be about alternative configurations for been operated by the right foot pedal on located on the left handlebar. Under the motorcycle brake controls and other all its vehicles since the early 1970’s. second alternative, for scooters without anticipated developments that might Harley-Davidson stated that the NPRM clutches a control for an integrated influence future brake system safety provided no ‘‘compelling reasons’’ why

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:13 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR1.SGM 30AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 51289

the rear brake control location should arrangements it believes should be such an arrangement would be change on the full-sized motorcycle deemed acceptable, and which should markedly different from existing offered by Harley-Davidson merely if a be prohibited. motorcycles and would be counter to clutchless transmission motorcycle were Honda stated that Alternative I, which the objective of standardization. While to be offered for sale. Harley-Davidson would create distinctions between there is only one manufacturer (Ridley further stated that the option that a rear motorcycles with and without clutch Motorcycle Company of Oklahoma City) brake control on clutchless transmission controls, would: currently marketing non-scooter motorcycles could be supplemented by [C]reate a condition where a single motorcycles with automatic a second control for the right foot would motorcycle * * * offered with both manual transmissions in the U.S., additional prove ‘‘troublesome,’’ adding and automatic transmission would have motorcycles of that kind might become manufacturing complexity and creating different locations for the rear brake controls. available in the near future. differences that are not readily Being similar in every other way, this FMVSS No. 123 was established to discernible between vehicles with and difference in rear brake control location standardize motorcycle controls and could lead to rider confusion if an individual displays, reducing the possibility of without a clutch lever. If Harley- were to ride both versions of this model. Davidson should market a clutchless unfamiliarity with controls from transmission motorcycle, Alternative I Honda concluded that based on the contributing to motorcycle crashes. would require it to use an arrangement background of FMVSS No. 123 (to When NHTSA adopted FMVSS No. 123 of brake controls unlike that on all other minimize confusion among motorcycle in the early 1970’s, the layout of motorcycles it presently sells, and riders, caused by varying locations of controls specified in FMVSS No. 123 would be unfamiliar to its customers. brake and clutch controls from one was that used by the overwhelming IMMA stated that since 1984, manufacturer to another), mandating majority of motorcycles sold in the U.S. manufacturers have been able to choose exceptions to the layout (depending on at that time. The layout included a lever between either a left-hand or right-foot whether there is a clutch), will result in on the right handlebar for the front location for the rear brake control on more variations from this arrangement, brake, and a foot control on the right scooters sold outside the U.S. IMMA which ‘‘could lead to a greater number side for the rear brake. stated that since it is not aware of any of crashes caused by critical confusion Currently, our main objective in study showing a safety problem from of riders.’’ amending FMVSS No. 123 is to address the industry trend towards rear brake manufacturers having a choice in the 2. NHTSA’s Response to the Comments rear brake control location, control placement on the left handlebar In responding to comments on the on certain motorcycles, resulting in manufacturers should continue to be issue of manufacturer discretion in free ‘‘to select whichever control layout many requests for temporary exemption, determining rear brake control location, so that those motorcycles can comply best suits their vehicle concept.’’ we begin by noting that no commenter with the rear brake control location Piaggio noted that the ECE regulation presented any kind of crash data, requirements without redesign. At the permits either the left hand or the right research studies, or other quantitative same time, NHTSA believes there must foot placement for the rear brake information to support their arguments. be continued attention on maintaining control. Piaggio stated: Although there may not be any studies standardization, which is the [M]any examples can be found of vehicles showing a safety problem in European foundation of FMVSS No. 123. For these adopting both of the aforementioned or Asian countries where manufacturers reasons, NHTSA is reluctant to consider configurations. To our knowledge, we are not are allowed to choose either brake amendments that reduce aware of any study, which has shown that control arrangement, and where similar standardization of the controls and this particular policy has caused operator motorcycles with different controls may confusion or compromised safety in any way. displays of similar motorcycles. On the other hand our experience has shown co-exist, the absence of research is not Therefore, we decline to implement that whenever a rider is presented with a the same as positive evidence of the lack the left hand rear brake control location new scooter, he/she rapidly adapts him/ of a safety effect. Therefore, the public as an optional location to the existing herself to the riding characteristics and input comments have not persuaded us to right foot location. Permitting requirements of the new bike. It is therefore permit manufacturer choice in rear manufacturers to choose between two our opinion that the manufacturer should be brake control location. different arrangements could result in allowed to adopt the layout which best We further note that not all similar or even identical clutchless satisfies the technical requirements for the commenters agreed on how much motorcycles having different rear brake vehicle. choice should be provided. For controls. While some commenters Yamaha did not specify whether it example, Harley-Davidson did not asserted that such an outcome would favored Alternatives I or II, but support differing rear brake control not have any safety consequences, recommended three possible location requirements, depending on without probative data, we continue to arrangements for motorcycle brake whether the motorcycle had a clutch. believe that the goal of standardization controls which were the most common Honda did not recommend a choice of is better served if FMVSS No. 123 ones.2 Yamaha stated that a brake control location for non-scooter specifically requires one brake control manufacturer should be able to select motorcycles, stating that non-scooter arrangement over another. Thus, this any of the three at its discretion for any motorcycles should not be allowed to final rule makes the left hand rear brake clutchless motorcycle. Peugeot went have a rear brake control on the left control a requirement, not an option, on further, listing virtually every possible handlebar. certain motorcycles. permutation of brake control Some commenters, in particular In summary, we have decided to arrangement, and indicating which Honda and Harley-Davidson, objected to amend FMVSS No. 123 so that scooter- the possibility of non-scooter type motorcycles with automatic 2 (1) Left hand for rear and right hand for front motorcycles that they manufacture transmissions (i.e., scooters without a operation of brake control levers; (2) right hand being equipped with left hand controls clutch) are required to have a left hand front brake operated brake lever and right foot rear brake pedal; and (3) left hand rear and right hand for their rear brakes under any rear brake control. Non-scooter front operated brake control levers with circumstances, i.e., they did not voice motorcycles are not subject to any new supplemental right foot-operated rear brake pedal. support for Alternative I. We agree that or different requirements. In the next

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:13 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR1.SGM 30AUR1 51290 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

section, ‘‘Definition of a Scooter,’’ we whether the motorcycle has pedals for NHTSA in its consideration of a discuss our decision to adopt the propulsion or a manual versus ‘‘scooter’’ definition. regulatory text of Alternative II (in the automatic transmission. a. ECE Regulation No. 60 Definitions NPRM), so that the left hand rear brake Honda recommended adopting That We Reviewed control is required only on ‘‘scooters’’ as Alternative II, but with appropriate defined in the regulatory text, and not revision to allow, but not require, a left ECE Regulation No. 60 does not on clutchless non-scooter motorcycles. handle bar-mounted rear brake control define ‘‘scooter’’ but refers in paragraph instead of the right foot control. Honda 6.2.2.2 to ‘‘vehicles equipped with a B. Comments on Alternative II stated that this would ‘‘permit more platform or footrests integrated into a 1. Public Comments freedom of design in the event future platform * * * [Emphasis added.]’’ ECE developments lead to designs that Regulation No. 60 allows a vehicle of The second major issue in this advance safety beyond current levels.’’ that description, i.e., a scooter, to have rulemaking is the proposed definition in However, Honda also stated its concern its rear brakes controlled by a lever on Alternative II for ‘‘scooter.’’ As that ‘‘the line between scooter and the left handlebar if it has an automatic discussed in the NPRM, NHTSA derived motorcycle will continue to blur’’ as transmission. This arrangement is the definition of ‘‘scooter’’ from the new scooters acquire more of the allowed unless the scooter is also a regulatory text of United Nations ECE features associated with non-scooter moped, in which case it is required. If Regulation No. 60, Addendum 59. motorcycles. Honda stated that a the motorcycle has a manual Honda favored Alternative II, but ‘‘scooter’’ definition must therefore be transmission, it must have a foot pedal several commenters stated that clear in prohibiting a non-scooter on the right side for the rear brake. NHTSA’s proposed definition was motorcycle from having a left hand rear ECE Regulation No. 60 defines ambiguous and would lead to difficulty brake control. Honda stated that such a ‘‘platform’’ (one of the attributes of a in interpreting the Standard. design would be contrary to convention ‘‘scooter’’ proposed in NHTSA’s NPRM) Harley-Davidson stated that the and would introduce the potential for as: ‘‘that part of the vehicle on which proposed definition is ‘‘troublesome’’ ‘‘critical confusion’’ of controls. Honda the driver places his feet, when seated and needs to make clear that non- stated: ‘‘We discourage allowing this in the normal driving position, in the scooter motorcycles are not included. design at all for fear of the potential case that the vehicle is not equipped Harley-Davidson stated that if NHTSA is safety hazards, and have no current with riding pedals or footrests for the to define ‘‘scooter,’’ it needs to use plans of selling a motorcycle with such driver.’’ The term ‘‘riding pedals’’ refers terms that are ‘‘unambiguous and clear.’’ a configuration.’’ to the pedals on mopeds used for Suzuki stated that the ‘‘scooter’’ Some commenters stated that a human-powered propulsion. definition ‘‘could quickly become separate definition of ‘‘scooter’’ would ‘‘Footrests’’ are defined in the ECE outdated as motorcycle designs not serve the interests of global standard as ‘‘the projections on either continue to evolve.’’ harmonization of motor vehicle safety side of the vehicle on which the driver IMMA described the deliberations standards. IMMA and Piaggio both places his feet when seated in the that went on during the development of indicated that a U.S. regulation with a driving position.’’ Footrests are usually ECE Regulation No. 60, recounting that ‘‘scooter’’ category would complicate in the form of foot pegs, although many a debate had occurred among the harmonization efforts under the 1998 motorcycles use small platforms which attendant parties over whether a Global Agreement at Geneva which has are mounted like foot pegs but are ‘‘scooter’’ category should be defined. the intended purpose of influencing elongated to support the entire foot. IMMA stated that the argument in favor signatory nations to make their of defining ‘‘scooter’’ was that typical corresponding standards as alike as b. Maximum Speed Characteristic scooters were a type of motorcycle possible when amending them. Honda We noted in the NPRM that ECE which had particular features to make on the other hand, stated that Regulation No. 60 limits the use of a left them appropriate for new riders Alternative II would more closely align handlebar lever for the rear brake to uninterested in non-scooter FMVSS No. 123 with impending motorcycles which, in addition to motorcycles. changes to ECE Regulation No. 60, that having a platform, ‘‘have a maximum IMMA stated that the arguments are ‘‘due this calendar year.’’ Honda design speed not exceeding 100 km/h.’’ against defining ‘‘scooter’’ were: It requested FMVSS No. 123 to allow the Modern, clutch-less scooters almost would cut across existing categories, same latitude in design for scooters as universally have their rear brake control i.e., moped and motorcycle, in ECE ECE 60 allows. located on the left handlebar even if regulations; a practical definition is they can exceed 100 km/h because 2. NHTSA’s Response to the Comments difficult to develop; and such an directives of the individual nations approach is design-based rather than In responding to the comments on the where most scooters are sold do not performance-based. IMMA further definition of ‘‘scooter,’’ we begin by adhere to the 100 km/h maximum speed stated: noting that there is no regulatory or limit of the ECE regulation. We also The outcome of these discussions was a statutory definition in U.S. motor noted that most of the scooter/ compromise which was designed to unblock vehicle safety laws or regulations, nor motorcycles (intended to be sold in the the discussion and yet increase the freedom any voluntary industry standard, to U.S) granted exemptions from FMVSS for the manufacturer to provide new vehicles, distinguish scooters from other No. 123 brake control placement are which were designed to attract a new class motorcycles. In our attempt to define capable of exceeding 100 km/h (62 of customer. Hence, the Regulation [ECE ‘‘scooter,’’ we have reviewed the most mph). Ultimately, this inconsistency Regulation] refers to both the absence of a relevant current regulation, United means that a speed-based definition was clutch and to footrests integrated into a Nations ECE Regulation No. 60, not likely to be practical. platform. Addendum 59, which is the basis for Piaggio urged the agency to abandon national regulations concerning c. Other Design Characteristics its attempt to categorize ‘‘scooters’’ and motorcycle controls in many European In the past, scooters could be instead to adopt a definition that used countries and Japan. The following distinguished from non-scooter functional characteristics, such as sections discuss issues considered by motorcycles by a number of design

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:13 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR1.SGM 30AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 51291

characteristics. For example, scooters configuration also provides the operator operation by the right foot.’’ Harley- were generally smaller in overall size with room to adjust his or her leg Davidson stated that it does not offer and engine displacement, were lighter, position for comfort. In contrast, for motorcycles with single-point braking and had smaller wheels. For scooter- non-scooter motorcycles, the engine and for sale, and had no opinion on where type motorcycles today, many of those fuel tank occupy the space forward of the single brake control on such distinctions are no longer universal. The the seat, and there are usually rigid motorcycles should be located. largest scooters are now as big and frame members located in the space However, it urged caution, noting that heavy as non-scooter motorcycles, with forward of the seat.3 FMVSS No. 123 at present equal or greater engine displacement Although traditional scooter ‘‘contemplates offering’’ a single brake and wheel size. In addition, scooters construction adheres closely to this control, operated by the right foot. often have engines in excess of five step-through architecture, some modern Harley-Davidson stated it was not aware horsepower, and so do not qualify as scooters have become more like non- of any motorcycles using a single-point motor-driven cycles by the definition in scooter motorcycles. Still, on all brake control.4 Harley-Davidson also 49 CFR 571.3. Scooters with engines in scooters of which NHTSA is aware, the noted that although one may use the left excess of five horsepower is the reason section of the vehicle forward of the seat foot on a car’s brakes if necessary, that why many modern scooters have had to that is between the operator’s legs is would not be possible on a motorcycle. be exempted from FMVSS No. 123 always lower than the seat itself. In After considering the comments, in requirements, and why this rulemaking contrast, the corresponding part of a this final rule, we have decided not to is necessary. non-scooter motorcycle is higher than amend the S5.2.1 requirement for d. Need for an Enhanced Scooter the seat in all models that we have motorcycles with combined brake Definition observed. We believe this difference systems and for manual transmission provides another obvious way to scooters with combined brake systems. The regulatory text of Alternative II in distinguish between scooters and other Both types of motorcycles with the NPRM, which is the basis for the motorcycle types. combined brake systems will continue final rule, was derived in large part from Therefore, in response to NPRM to have their single-point control ECE Regulation No. 60, but focuses on comments, we have added regulatory located at the right foot. the ‘‘platform’’ characteristic instead of language referring to the step-through For clutchless scooters, however, this the maximum speed characteristic. architecture characteristic to enhance final rule requires that a single-point Scooters are generally characterized by the proposed S4 ‘‘scooter’’ definition. control for a combined brake system be having a continuous platform or The final rule’s definition now reads as located on the left handlebar. In its floorboard, or right and left floorboards, follows (the italicized text has been comments, Honda asserted that a single- built into their body structures, or some added to the definition that was point control should be located on the other built-in accommodation for the proposed in the NPRM): right side. However, NHTSA believes operator’s feet. This contrasts with the that a single-point control on the left foot pegs used on non-scooter ‘‘Scooter’’ means a motorcycle that (1) has a platform for the operator’s feet or has handlebar is acceptable for the motorcycles. following reason. On a clutchless As earlier indicated, several integrated footrests, and (2) has a step- through architecture meaning that the part of scooter with combined braking, the commenters, expressing dissatisfaction the vehicle forward of the operator’s seat and operator would be freed from the task of with the NPRM definition, indicated a between the legs of an operator seated in the shifting gears and of controlling front potential for misunderstanding about riding position is lower in height than the and rear brakes separately. Therefore, how some motorcycles should be operator’s seat. the driving task would be reduced to classified, due to crossover models NHTSA notes that under this throttling with the right hand and between the scooters and non-scooter expanded definition, a motorcycle must braking with the left. It is NHTSA’s motorcycles. NHTSA has recognized have both platforms and the step- belief that such inherently that many non-scooter motorcycles are through characteristics in order to be uncomplicated operation would now equipped with individual platform- considered a ‘‘scooter.’’ Thus, this safeguard the operator from confusion style footrests for each of the rider’s feet. definition will allow for easier over controls. Although such footrests are not usually differentiation between scooters and In order to further clarify that a single- part of the body structure of the other types of motorcycles. NHTSA point brake control must be located as motorcycle (as they typically are on a believes the definition presented in this if it were a rear brake control, NHTSA scooter), we recognized the potential for final rule ensures that all existing has modified the last statement in S5.2.1 confusion. scooter designs can be adequately as follows (new text italicized): e. New Step-Through Architecture differentiated. If a motorcycle is equipped with self- Criterion for Defining Scooters C. Other Issues proportioning or antilock braking devices Because it is critical that ‘‘scooter’’ be utilizing a single control for front and rear defined as accurately as possible, we 1. Single-Point (Combined) Braking brakes, the control shall be located and operable in the same manner as a rear brake have decided it is appropriate to add an In response to the NPRM, Honda control, as specified in Table 1, Item 11, and additional criterion in this final rule to reiterated ‘‘our strongly held belief that in this paragraph. distinguish between scooters and non- a single-point control for a combined scooter motorcycles. As discussed in the braking system must be located in one 2. Supplemental Rear Brake Controls NPRM, we note that scooters can be or the other of the current locations— In response to the NPRM, Honda differentiated from other motorcycles by either on the right handlebar or for stated its view that the right foot the step-through frame architecture that activated rear brake control is primary, leaves the space directly in front of the 3 We acknowledge that some motorcycles, and in and the left hand control for the rear operator’s seat largely open, allowing particular, one popular model of touring bike, have a storage compartment in place of the fuel tank, the the rider to mount the seat by stepping latter being located under the seat; nevertheless, in 4 Except for some three-wheeled models with through the scooter, rather than having overall appearance and layout, they are essentially enclosed cabins similar in function to an to swing a leg over it. The scooter like non-scooter motorcycles. automobile.

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:13 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR1.SGM 30AUR1 51292 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

brake is supplemental. Honda stated text: ‘‘The supplemental brake control ‘‘Motorcycle Control and Display that its preferred control location is shall provide brake actuation identical Identification Requirements’’ are listed more in keeping with FMVSS No. 123 to that provided by the required control in Table 3 of FMVSS No. 123 and in its current form, and ‘‘is more of Table 1, Item 11, of this Standard.’’ include speedometer labeling supportive of the consistent location of specifications. A potential source of 3. Minor Revision to Table 1 brake controls.’’ No other commenter confusion about speedometer labeling provided views on this issue. In three places in Column 2 of Table appears to be that Item 8 in Table 3 lists After considering Honda’s comment 1 of FMVSS No. 123, the abbreviation ‘‘M.P.H.’’ and ‘‘km/h’’ to denote the (which essentially recommended ‘‘do.’’, a shortening of ‘‘ditto,’’ is used to required display units. For comparison, maintaining the status quo), with regard indicate that the previous entry in the FMVSS No. 101, which in Table 2 has to supplemental rear brake controls, column is repeated. The text that is corresponding requirements for under this final rule, we have decided replaced by the abbreviation is ‘‘Left passenger vehicles, lists ‘‘MPH’’ and that all non-scooter motorcycles will handlebar’’ in the first instance where ‘‘MPH and km/h’’ to denote the required continue to have right foot pedal control the abbreviation appears, and ‘‘Right display units. As with FMVSS No. 101 of their rear brakes, and a supplemental handlebar’’ in the two subsequent for passenger vehicles, FMVSS No. 123 rear brake control would be located on instances. This abbreviation is is meant to require motorcycle the left handlebar if no clutch lever potentially confusing, and it is also speedometers in the United States to were present, as the standard currently unnecessary since the replaced text can read in either miles per hour alone or requires. be expressed in full without difficulty. in miles per hour with kilometers per However, it is necessary to specify Therefore, in this final rule, in Table 1, hour. The rulemaking history of FMVSS that, on a clutch-less scooter with a the ‘‘do.’’ abbreviation is replaced with No. 123 makes clear that NHTSA never supplemental rear brake control, that the full text, ‘‘Left handlebar’’ or ‘‘Right intended to allow a motorcycle control must be located at the right foot handlebar’’ as appropriate. The revised speedometer to read only in kilometers pedal. This change is reflected in S5.2.1 regulatory text in Table 1 is that of per hour. of the regulatory language of the final Column 2, Items 4, 9, and 10. In order to minimize any confusion rule. about motorcycle speedometer labeling, 4. Minor Revisions to Table 3 To ensure that a supplemental brake we are making the following minor control provides the same braking Motorcycle manufacturers or revision to Table 3 of FMVSS No. 123. function as a primary rear brake control importers have asked NHTSA whether In Columns 2 and 4, the display in cases where the primary control is a motorcycle speedometers in the U.S. specifications for ‘‘Speedometer’’ (Item single-point control, NHTSA has added must indicate speed in miles per hour, No. 8) are modified as follows (changes the following statement to the regulatory or if kilometers per hour suffices. indicated in bold text):

MOTORCYCLE CONTROL AND DISPLAY IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

Column 4 Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Identification at Appropriate No. Equipment Control and Display Identification Word Control and Display Identi- Position of Control and Dis- fication Symbol play

******* 8 Speedometer MPH or llllllllllll MPH 4 MPH, km/h MPH, km/h 5

In addition, in No. 5, ‘‘Headlamp is lower in height than the operator’s brake control would be located on the Upper-Lower Beam Control,’’ Column 4 seat. Scooters with automatic left handlebar if no clutch lever were is corrected to read ‘‘Hi, Lo’’. All other transmissions (i.e., motorcycles without present, as the standard currently items in Table 3 and associated a clutch) are required to have a left hand requires. On a clutchless scooter with a footnotes remain unchanged. rear brake control. supplemental rear brake control, that control must be located at the right foot V. Final Rule In this final rule, FMVSS No. 123 continues to require non-scooter pedal. As discussed in the previous sections, motorcycles with combined brake Finally, we have made minor changes in this final rule, we adopt Alternative systems, and to require manual to Tables 1 and 3. transmission scooters with combined II proposed in the NPRM, and define a VI. Leadtime ‘‘scooter’’ category that is different from brake systems, to have their single-point other motorcycles. In addition to the control be located at the right foot, the In the NPRM, we proposed to make feature of platforms proposed in the required location for the rear brake the amendments effective 12 months NPRM, in this final rule, we add the control. For clutchless scooters, after the final rule is published, but to feature of the step-through architecture, however, this final fule requires that a allow optional early compliance 30 days so the scooter definition consists of two single-point control for a combined after the final rule is published. We parts, a motorcycle that has (1) a brake system be located on the left stated our belief that because this platform for the operator’s feet or has handlebar. proposal would permit controls for rear integrated footrests, and (2) has a step- With regard to supplemental rear motorcycle brakes to be placed on left through architecture, meaning that the brake controls, under this final rule, all motorcycle handlebars, a regulatory part of the vehicle forward of the non-scooter motorcycles will continue restriction would be lifted, and operator’s seat and between the legs of to have right foot pedal control of their motorcycles that do not presently meet an operator seated in the riding position rear brakes, and a supplemental rear FMVSS No. 123 would be permitted. All

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:21 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR1.SGM 30AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 51293

other existing motorcycles would also public comment in an NPRM and have location requirements that the rear brake meet the provisions of the proposed carefully considered the public is operated by a right foot control. rule. comments before issuing this final rule. In general, the public comments Except for Honda’s recommending As a result, we believe that this final stated that manufacturers should be ‘‘early compliance’’ with the final rule, rule reflects consideration of all relevant given some discretion in the urging us to make the final rule effective available motor vehicle safety arrangement of brake controls. In as soon as possible, we received no information. Consideration of all these response to the comments, we reiterated comments on the leadtime issue. Thus, statutory factors has resulted in the that FMVSS No. 123 was established to as NHTSA proposed in the NPRM, this following decisions in this final rule. reduce the possibility of unfamiliarity final rule takes effect one year after the At present, FMVSS No. 123 requires with controls contributing to motorcycle date of publication in the Federal the control for a motorcycle’s rear crashes. When NHTSA adopted FMVSS Register. Optional compliance is brakes to be located on the right side of No. 123 in the early 1970’s, the layout available as of the date of publication of the motorcycle and be operable by the of controls specified in FMVSS No. 123 this final rule in the Federal Register. rider’s right foot. FMVSS No. 123 was that used by the overwhelming VII. Statutory Basis for the Final Rule requires the control for a motorcycle’s majority of motorcycles sold in the U.S. front brakes to be located on the right at that time. The layout included a lever We have issued this final rule handlebar. For rear brakes on a ‘‘motor- on the right handlebar for the front pursuant to our statutory authority. driven cycle 5,’’ FMVSS permits the brake, and a foot control on the right Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor control on the left handlebar. If a side for the rear brake. Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), motorcycle has an automatic clutch Our current objective is to address the the Secretary of Transportation is (eliminating the need for a clutch lever) industry trend towards rear brake responsible for prescribing motor control placement on the left handlebar vehicle safety standards that are and a supplemental rear brake control on certain motorcycles, resulting in practicable, meet the need for motor (in addition to the right foot control), vehicle safety, and are stated in the supplemental control must be many petitions for temporary objective terms. 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). located on the left handlebar. Finally, if exemption, so that those motorcycles When prescribing such standards, the a motorcycle is equipped with a single can comply with the rear brake control Secretary must consider all relevant, control for both the front and rear location requirements without redesign. available motor vehicle safety brakes, that control must be located and At the same time, we believed there information. 49 U.S.C. 30111(b). The operable in the same manner as a rear must be continued attention to Secretary must also consider whether a brake control. maintaining standardization, which is proposed standard is reasonable, Since 1999, we have granted several the foundation of FMVSS No. 123. practicable, and appropriate for the type petitions for temporary exemption from Thus, we were reluctant to consider of motor vehicle or motor vehicle the brake control location requirements. amendments that reduce equipment for which it is prescribed These petitions have come from standardization for similar vehicles. and the extent to which the standard manufacturers of scooters with Therefore, we decided not to will further the statutory purpose of automatic transmissions (without clutch implement the left hand rear brake reducing traffic accidents and deaths levers) and handlebar-mounted brake control location as an optional location and injuries resulting from traffic controls, which is a common to the existing right foot location. accidents. Id. Responsibility for arrangement outside of the United Permitting manufacturers to choose promulgation of Federal motor vehicle States. These manufacturers could not between two different arrangements safety standards was subsequently sell their scooters in the U.S. because could result in similar or even identical delegated to NHTSA. 49 U.S.C. 105 and the scooters could not meet the clutchless motorcycles having different 322; delegation of authority at 49 CFR requirement that motorcycles be rear brake controls. While some 1.50. equipped with a right foot control for commenters asserted that such an As a Federal agency, before the rear brake. We reviewed a study that outcome would not have any safety promulgating changes to a Federal American riders do not appear to consequences, without probative data, motor vehicle safety standard, NHTSA hesitate in using a left handlebar- we continue to believe that the goal of also has a statutory responsibility to mounted rear brake control and that standardization is better served if follow the informal rulemaking riders benefit in their braking response FMVSS No. 123 specifically requires procedures mandated in the time. one brake control arrangement over Administrative Procedure Act at 5 In the NPRM, we proposed to amend another. Thus, this final rule makes the U.S.C. Section 553. Among these FMVSS No. 123 by proposing two left hand rear brake control a requirements are Federal Register regulatory alternatives for the location requirement, not an option, on certain publication of a general notice of of the rear brake control. The first motorcycles. proposed rulemaking, and giving alternative would require the rear brake In summary, we have decided to interested persons an opportunity to control to be located on the left amend FMVSS No. 123 so that scooter- participate in the rulemaking through handlebar for any motorcycle that lacks type motorcycles with automatic submission of written data, views or a clutch, regardless of the motorcycle’s transmissions (i.e., motorcycles without arguments. After consideration of the configuration. The second alternative a clutch) are required to have a left hand public comments, we must incorporate would require the left handlebar rear brake control. Non-scooter into the rules adopted, a concise general location only for clutchless motorcycles motorcycles need not meet any new or statement of the rule’s basis and that are ‘‘scooters,’’ a newly defined different requirements. purpose. subset of motorcycles. Under either As indicated, we have thoroughly The agency has carefully considered alternative, all other motorcycles would reviewed the public comments and these statutory requirements in meet present FMVSS No. 123 rear brake amended the final rule to reflect the promulgating this final rule to amend comments, consistent with meeting the FMVSS No. 123. As previously 5 ‘‘A motorcycle with a motor that produces five need for safety. We believe that this discussed in detail, we have solicited brake horsepower or less’’ (49 CFR section 571.3). final rule meets the need for safety.

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:13 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR1.SGM 30AUR1 51294 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

VIII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) E.O. 12866 and does not involve decisions based on environmental, A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Executive Order 13132 requires us to health or safety risks that Regulatory Policies and Procedures develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by disproportionately affect children. This Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory State and local officials in the final rule makes changes affecting only Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, development of regulatory policies that motorcycle manufacturers. Many States October 4, 1993), provides for making have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies do not permit children under 18 years determinations whether a regulatory that have federalism implications’’ is of age to be licensed to drive motorcycles, or to be passengers on action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore defined in the Executive Order to motorcycles. subject to Office of Management and include regulations that have Budget (OMB) review and to the ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice requirements of the Executive Order. on the relationship between the national Reform) The Order defines a ‘‘significant government and the States, or on the Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, regulatory action’’ as one that is likely distribution of power and ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ we have to result in a rule that may: responsibilities among the various considered whether this rule will have (1) Have an annual effect on the levels of government.’’ Under Executive any retroactive effect. We conclude that economy of $100 million or more or Order 13132, we may not issue a it will not have such an effect. adversely affect in a material way the regulation with federalism implications, Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a economy, a sector of the economy, that imposes substantial direct Federal motor vehicle safety standard is productivity, competition, jobs, the compliance costs, and that is not in effect, a State may not adopt or environment, public health or safety, or required by statute, unless the Federal maintain a safety standard applicable to State, local, or tribal governments or Government provides the funds the same aspect of performance which communities; necessary to pay the direct compliance is not identical to the Federal standard, (2) Create a serious inconsistency or costs incurred by State and local except to the extent that the state otherwise interfere with an action taken governments, or unless we consult with requirement imposes a higher level of or planned by another agency; State and local governments, or unless performance and applies only to we consult with State and local officials vehicles procured for the State’s use. 49 (3) Materially alter the budgetary early in the process of developing the U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, proposed regulation. We also may not judicial review of final rules or loan programs or the rights and issue a regulation with federalism establishing, amending or revoking obligations of recipients thereof; or implications and that preempts State Federal motor vehicle safety standards. (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues law unless we consult with State and That section does not require arising out of legal mandates, the local officials early in the process of submission of a petition for President’s priorities, or the principles developing the proposed regulation. reconsideration or other administrative set forth in the Executive Order. This rule will not have substantial proceedings before parties may file suit We have considered the impact of this direct effects on the States, on the in court. relationship between the national rulemaking action under Executive E. Regulatory Flexibility Act Order 12866 and the Department of government and the States, or on the Transportation’s regulatory policies and distribution of power and Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility procedures. This rulemaking document responsibilities among the various Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by was not reviewed by the Office of levels of government, as specified in the Small Business Regulatory Management and Budget under E.O. Executive Order 13132. The reason is Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and that this final rule applies to motorcycle 1996) whenever an agency is required to Review.’’ The rulemaking action is also manufacturers, not to the States or local publish a notice of rulemaking for any not considered to be significant under governments. Thus, the requirements of proposed or final rule, it must prepare the Department’s Regulatory Policies Section 6 of the Executive Order do not and make available for public comment and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February apply. a regulatory flexibility analysis that 26, 1979). describes the effect of the rule on small C. Executive Order 13045 (Economically entities (i.e., small businesses, small For the following reasons, we have Significant Rules Affecting Children) organizations, and small governmental concluded that this final rule will not Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, jurisdictions). However, no regulatory have any cost effect on motor vehicle April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: flexibility analysis is required if the manufacturers. This rule will have no (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically head of an agency certifies the rule substantive effect on motorcycles that significant’’ as defined under E.O. would not have a significant economic are already manufactured for the U.S. 12866, and (2) concerns an impact on a substantial number of small market, and will facilitate the import of environmental, health or safety risk that entities. SBREFA amended the motorcycles that do not meet present NHTSA has reason to believe may have Regulatory Flexibility Act to require requirements for the location of a disproportionate effect on children. If Federal agencies to provide a statement motorcycle rear brake controls. This the regulatory action meets both criteria, of the factual basis for certifying that a final rule will have a slight economic we must evaluate the environmental rule would not have a significant benefit to manufacturers of the import health or safety effects of the planned economic impact on a substantial motorcycles, which will now not have rule on children, and explain why the number of small entities. to design and build separate planned regulation is preferable to other The Agency Administrator considered motorcycles for the U.S. market and for potentially effective and reasonably the effects of this rulemaking action Europe and Japan. feasible alternatives considered by us. under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Because the economic impacts of this This rule is not subject to the U.S.C. § 601 et seq.) and certifies that rule are so minimal, no further Executive Order because it is not this final rule will not have a significant regulatory evaluation is necessary. economically significant as defined in economic impact on a substantial

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:13 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR1.SGM 30AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 51295

number of small entities. The factual rule for which a written statement is List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 basis for this certification is that this needed, section 205 of the UMRA Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor final rule will have no effect on small generally requires us to identify and vehicles, Rubber and rubber products, U.S. motorcycle manufacturers. The consider a reasonable number of Tires. small manufacturers already regulatory alternatives and adopt the I In consideration of the foregoing, the manufacture motorcycles that meet the least costly, most cost-effective or least Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards present motorcycle rear brake control burdensome alternative that achieves (49 CFR part 571), are amended as set requirements and that meet this final the objectives of the rule. The forth below. rule’s amendments to the rear brake provisions of section 205 do not apply control requirements when they are inconsistent with PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR applicable law. Moreover, section 205 F. National Environmental Policy Act VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS allows us to adopt an alternative other We have analyzed this final rule for than the least costly, most cost-effective I 1. The authority citation for part 571 the purposes of the National or least burdensome alternative if we continues to read as follows: Environmental Policy Act and publish with the final rule an Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, determined that it will not have any explanation why that alternative was 30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at significant impact on the quality of the not adopted. 49 CFR 1.50. human environment. This final rule will not result in costs I 2. Section 571.123 of Title 49, Code of G. Paperwork Reduction Act of $100 million or more to either State, Federal Regulations is amended by NHTSA has determined that this final local, or tribal governments, in the adding a definition of ‘‘scooter’’ in the rule will not impose any ‘‘collection of aggregate, or to the private sector. Thus, correct alphabetical order to S4, by information’’ burdens on the public, this final rule is not subject to the revising S5.2.1, by revising table 1, and within the meaning of the Paperwork requirements of sections 202 and 205 of by revising table 3 to read as follows: the UMRA. Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). This § 571.123 Motorcyle Controls and rulemaking action will not impose any J. Plain Language Displays. filing or recordkeeping requirements on * * * * * any manufacturer or any other party. Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain S4. Definitions. H. National Technology Transfer and language. Application of the principles * * * * * Advancement Act of plain language includes consideration Scooter means a motorcycle that: Section 12(d) of the National of the following questions: (1) Has a platform for the operator’s Technology Transfer and Advancement feet or has integrated footrests, and —Have we organized the material to suit Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– (2) Has a step-through architecture, the public’s needs? 113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) meaning that the part of the vehicle directs us to use voluntary consensus —Are the requirements in the rule forward of the operator’s seat and standards in our regulatory activities clearly stated? between the legs of an operator seated unless doing so would be inconsistent —Does the rule contain technical in the riding position, is lower in height with applicable law or otherwise language or jargon that is not clear? than the operator’s seat. * * * * * impractical. Voluntary consensus —Would a different format (grouping S5.2.1 Control location and operation. standards are technical standards (e.g., and order of sections, use of headings, If any item of equipment listed in Table materials specifications, test methods, paragraphing) make the rule easier to 1, Column 1, is provided, the control for sampling procedures, and business understand? practices) that are developed or adopted such item shall be located as specified by voluntary consensus standards —Would more (but shorter) sections be in Column 2, and operable as specified bodies, such as the Society of better? in Column 3. Each control located on a Automotive Engineers (SAE). The —Could we improve clarity by adding right handlebar shall be operable by the NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, tables, lists, or diagrams? operator’s right hand throughout its full through OMB, explanations when we —What else could we do to make this range without removal of the operator’s decide not to use available and rulemaking easier to understand? right hand from the throttle. Each applicable voluntary consensus control located on a left handlebar shall standards. In the November 21, 2003 NPRM, we be operable by the operator’s left hand After conducting a search of available asked for public comment on whether throughout its full range without sources, we have found no applicable the NPRM meets Plain Language removal of the operator’s left hand from voluntary consensus standards. principles. We received no comments the handgrip. If a motorcycle with an on the Plain Language issue. automatic clutch other than a scooter is I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) equipped with a supplemental rear Section 202 of the Unfunded brake control, the control shall be Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) The Department of Transportation located on the left handlebar. If a requires Federal agencies to prepare a assigns a regulation identifier number scooter with an automatic clutch is written assessment of the costs, benefits (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in equipped with a supplemental rear and other effects of proposed or final the Unified Agenda of Federal brake control, the control shall be on the rules that include a Federal mandate Regulations. The Regulatory Information right side and operable by the operator’s likely to result in the expenditure by Service Center publishes the Unified right foot. A supplemental control shall State, local or tribal governments, in the Agenda in April and October of each provide brake actuation identical to that aggregate, or by the private sector, of year. You may use the RIN contained in provided by the required control of more than $100 million in any one year the heading at the beginning of this Table 1, Item 11, of this Standard. If a (adjusted for inflation with base year of document to find this action in the motorcycle is equipped with self- 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA Unified Agenda. proportioning or antilock braking

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:13 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR1.SGM 30AUR1 51296 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

devices utilizing a single control for specified in Table 1, Item 11, and in this front and rear brakes, the control shall paragraph. be located and operable in the same * * * * * manner as a rear brake control, as BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:13 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR1.SGM 30AUR1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 51297

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:13 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\30AUR1.SGM 30AUR1 ER30AU05.000 51298 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

* * * * *

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:13 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR1.SGM 30AUR1 ER30AU05.001 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 51299

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:13 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\30AUR1.SGM 30AUR1 ER30AU05.002 51300 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

Issued on: August 23, 2005. therefore 3,089 mt (4,446 mt minus DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Jacqueline Glassman, 1,357 mt). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Deputy Administrator. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), Administration [FR Doc. 05–17103 Filed 8–29–05; 8:45 am] the Regional Administrator has BILLING CODE 4910–59–C determined that the C season allowance 50 CFR Part 679 of the 2005 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA will soon be [Docket No. 041126333–5040–02; I.D. 082405A] DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic National Oceanic and Atmospheric fishing allowance of 3,039 mt, and is Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in Statistical Administration setting aside the remaining 50 mt as Area 630 of the Gulf of Alaska bycatch to support other anticipated 50 CFR Part 679 groundfish fisheries. In accordance with AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and [Docket No. 041126333–5040–02; I.D. Administrator finds that this directed Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 082405B] fishing allowance has been reached. Commerce. Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in Statistical directed fishing for pollock in Statistical SUMMARY: Area 620 of the Gulf of Alaska Area 620 of the GOA. NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area After the effective date of this closure AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 630 of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This the maximum retainable amounts at Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and action is necessary to prevent exceeding § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the C season allowance of the 2005 total Commerce. during a trip. allowable catch (TAC) of pollock for ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. Classification Statistical Area 630 of the GOA. DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed This action responds to the best time (A.l.t.), August 27, 2005, through fishing for pollock in Statistical Area available information recently obtained 1200 hrs, A.l.t., October 1, 2005. 620 of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This from the fishery. The Assistant FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh action is necessary to prevent exceeding Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA Keaton, 907–586–7228. the C season allowance of the 2005 total (AA), finds good cause to waive the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS allowable catch (TAC) of pollock for requirement to provide prior notice and manages the groundfish fishery in the Statistical Area 620 of the GOA. opportunity for public comment GOA exclusive economic zone DATES pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 : Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local according to the Fishery Management time (A.l.t.), August 29, 2005, through U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of 1200 hrs, A.l.t., October 1, 2005. impracticable and contrary to the public Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh interest. This requirement is Pacific Fishery Management Council Keaton, 907–586–7228. impracticable and contrary to the public under authority of the Magnuson- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS interest as it would prevent NMFS from Stevens Fishery Conservation and manages the groundfish fishery in the responding to the most recent fisheries Management Act. Regulations governing GOA exclusive economic zone data in a timely fashion and would fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance according to the Fishery Management delay the closure of pollock in with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Statistical Area 620 of the GOA. NMFS CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North was unable to publish an action The C season allowance of the 2005 Pacific Fishery Management Council providing time for public comment TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 630 under authority of the Magnuson- because the most recent, relevant data of the GOA is 6,274 metric tons (mt) as Stevens Fishery Conservation and only became available as of August 22, established by the 2005 and 2006 Management Act. Regulations governing 2005. harvest specifications for groundfish of fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance The AA also finds good cause to the GOA (70 FR 8958, February 24, with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 waive the 30 day delay in the effective 2005). In accordance with CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. date of this action under 5 U.S.C. § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the Administrator, The C season allowance of the 2005 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 620 the reasons provided above for waiver of Administrator), hereby decreases the C of the GOA is 4,446 metric tons (mt) as prior notice and opportunity for public season pollock allowance by 2,547 mt, established by the 2005 and 2006 comment. the amount by which the A and B harvest specifications for groundfish of season allowance of the pollock TAC in the GOA (70 FR 8958, February 24, This action is required by § 679.20 Statistical Area 630 was exceeded. The 2005). In accordance with and is exempt from review under revised C season allowance of the § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the Administrator, Executive Order 12866. pollock TAC in Statistical Area 630 is Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. therefore 3,727 mt (6,274 mt minus Administrator), hereby decreases the C 2,547 mt). Dated: August 24, 2005. season pollock allowance by 1,357 mt, In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the amount by which the A and B Alan D. Risenhoover, the Regional Administrator has season allowance of the pollock TAC in Acting Director, Office of Sustainable determined that the C season allowance Statistical Area 620 was exceeded. The Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. of the 2005 TAC of pollock in Statistical revised C season allowance of the [FR Doc. 05–17222 Filed 8–25–05; 2:40 pm] Area 630 of the GOA will soon be pollock TAC in Statistical Area 620 is BILLING CODE 3510–22–S reached. Therefore, the Regional

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:13 Aug 29, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR1.SGM 30AUR1