[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51650-51680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20480]



[[Page 51649]]

Vol. 77

Friday,

No. 165

August 24, 2012

Part III





Department of Transportation





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





National Highway Traffic Safety Administration





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





49 CFR Part 571





Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Motorcycle Brake Systems; Final 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 165 / Friday, August 24, 2012 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 51650]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0123]
RIN 2127-AK16


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Motorcycle Brake Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of 
Transportation (NHTSA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Federal motor vehicle safety 
standard (FMVSS) on motorcycle brake systems to add and update 
requirements and test procedures and to harmonize with a global 
technical regulation (GTR) for motorcycle brakes. The GTR was developed 
under the United Nations 1998 Global Agreement with the U.S. as an 
active participant, and it was derived from various motorcycle braking 
regulations from around the world, including the U.S. motorcycle brake 
systems standard. This final rule includes numerous modifications to 
the test procedures for motorcycle brake systems, but does not change 
the scope, applicability, and safety purpose of the motorcycle brake 
systems FMVSS.

DATES: This final rule is effective October 23, 2012. Petitions for 
reconsideration must be received by October 9, 2012.
    The various compliance dates for these regulations are set forth, 
as applicable, in Sec.  571.122, S3. Optional early compliance is 
permitted on and after October 23, 2012.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 
October 23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration must be submitted to: 
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical issues: Mr. George Soodoo, Division Chief, Vehicle 
Dynamics (NVS-122), Office of Crash Avoidance Standards (Email: 
[email protected]) (Telephone: (202) 366-2720) (Fax: (202) 366-
5930) or Mr. Ezana Wondimneh, Division Chief, International Policy and 
Harmonization (NVS-133), Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy 
and Consumer Programs (Email: [email protected]) (Telephone: 
(202) 366-0846) (Fax: (202) 493-2290).
    For legal issues: Mr. David Jasinski, Office of the Chief Counsel 
(NCC-112) (Email: [email protected]) (Telephone: (202) 366-2992) 
(Fax: (202) 366-3820).
    You may send mail to these officials at National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
    A. Current Requirements of FMVSS No. 122
    B. Harmonization Efforts
    C. Comments Received in Response to the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking
III. General Improvements to FMVSS No. 122
    A. New Terminology
    B. Measurement of Performance Using Stopping Distance
    C. Motorcycle Test Speed and Corrected Stopping Distance
    D. Peak Braking Coefficient
    E. Test Sequence
    F. Brake Application Force Measurement
    G. Brake Temperature Measurement
    H. Burnishing Procedure
    I. Notice of Wear
IV. Specific Performance Test Improvements to FMVSS No. 122
    A. Dry Stop Test--Single Brake Control Actuated
    B. Dry Stop Test--All Service Brake Controls Actuated
    C. High-Speed Test
    D. Wet Brake Test
    E. Heat Fade Test
    F. Parking Brake System Test
    G. Antilock Brake System (ABS) Performance Test
    1. Low Friction Surface for ABS Testing
    2. Wheel Lock
    3. Tests With ABS Electrical Failure
    4. Other ABS-Related Comments
    H. Partial Failure Test--Split Service Brake System
    I. Power-Assisted Braking System Failure Test
V. Other Comments and Technical Amendments
    A. Labeling Requirements
    B. Versions of ASTM Standards
    C. Terminology
VI. Compliance Date
VII. Costs and Benefits
VIII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary

    Currently, motorcycles must comply with a series of performance 
requirements established in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 122, Motorcycle Brake Systems, in the early 1970's. While 
the current motorcycle brake performance requirements have ensured a 
minimum level of braking performance, they have not kept pace with the 
advancement of modern technologies. The National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) seeks to keep its standards up to date. This 
final rule updates FMVSS No. 122 based on the Motorcycle Brake Systems 
Global Technical Regulation (GTR), which reflects the capabilities of 
current in-use technologies. Updating the standard to reflect modern 
technologies would help prevent the introduction of unsafe motorcycle 
brake systems on the road. Moreover, benefits from harmonization, 
including decreased testing costs and ease of market entry, would 
accrue to current and new manufacturers, and would in turn get passed 
on to consumers.
    The substantive performance tests and requirements of FMVSS No. 122 
have not been updated since their adoption in 1972. Since that time, 
motorcycle brake system technology has significantly changed and 
improved such that FMVSS No. 122 no longer reflects the current 
performance of motorcycle brake system technologies. In order to 
address modern braking technologies, the agency sought to improve the 
requirements and test procedures of FMVSS No. 122. These efforts 
coincided with the 2002 adoption of the initial Program of Work under 
the 1998 United Nations' Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) 
Agreement Concerning the Establishment of Global and Technical 
Regulations for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts Which Can Be 
Fitted And/or Be Used On Wheeled Vehicles (1998 Agreement).\1\ That 
program included motorcycle brake systems as one of the promising areas 
for the establishment of a GTR. The agency sought to work 
collaboratively on modernizing motorcycle brake regulations with other 
Contracting Parties to the 1998 Agreement (Contracting Parties), 
particularly Canada, the European Union and Japan. Through the exchange 
of information on ongoing research and testing and through the 
leveraging of resources for testing and evaluations, the agency 
participated in successful efforts that culminated in the establishment 
of the Motorcycle Brake Systems GTR under

[[Page 51651]]

the 1998 Agreement. We believe that the provisions of the GTR NHTSA is 
adopting in today's final rule will improve the current requirements 
and test procedures of FMVSS No. 122 by updating them to more closely 
reflect the capabilities of modern technologies that are already being 
used in most motorcycles sold in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 1998 UNECE Agreement Concerning the Establishment of 
Global and Technical Regulations for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and 
Parts Which Can Be Fitted And/or Be Used On Wheeled Vehicles (1998 
Agreement) was concluded under the auspices of the United Nations 
and provides for the establishment of globally harmonized vehicle 
regulations. This 1998 Agreement, whose conclusion was spearheaded 
by the United States, entered into force in 2000 and is administered 
by the UNECE's World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle 
Regulations (WP.29). See http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29age.html (last accessed September 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule makes improvements to FMVSS No. 122, but retains 
many fundamental elements of the current standard. For example, this 
final rule adopts new terminology and includes definitions for terms 
used in the regulatory text, including adopting five categories for 
motorcycles based on the number of wheels and maximum speed of the 
motorcycle. This final rule retains stopping distance as the sole 
compliance criterion for several performance tests in FMVSS No. 122. 
The current FMVSS No. 122 is improved by specifying a tolerance for the 
initial test speed for compliance tests, recognizing that even 
professional test drivers cannot attain the exact speed specified in 
every test. This final rule incorporates by reference an ASTM 
International method for the measurement of the coefficient of friction 
of the test surface that is already used in NHTSA's other brake 
standards. This final rule, like the existing version of FMVSS No. 122, 
specifies the order in which NHTSA will conduct its compliance tests, 
but it moves the brake fade test to the end of the test sequence in 
order to eliminate a re-burnishing procedure, resulting in a more 
efficient test sequence. The procedure for the initial burnish is 
retained with minor alteration.
    The rule includes several tests that would enhance the safe 
operation of a motorcycle: Tests both at gross vehicle weight rating 
(GVWR) and lightly loaded vehicle weight, which ensure adequate braking 
performance at the two extremes of the loading conditions; a wet brake 
test that is more representative of the manner in which brakes are 
wetted during real world riding in wet conditions; a variety of ABS 
performance tests to ensure that motorcycles equipped with ABS have 
adequate antilock performance during emergency braking or on slippery 
road conditions; and a new requirement that addresses failure in the 
power-assisted braking system.
    Specifically, the rule will improve the FMVSS No. 122 requirements 
in several areas. First, it will make the dry brake test requirement 
more stringent by specifying testing of each service brake control 
individually, with the motorcycle in the fully loaded condition. 
Second, the rule will implement a more stringent high speed test 
requirement by specifying a slightly higher rate of deceleration. 
Third, the rule replaces the existing wet brake test with one that 
better simulates actual in-service conditions, by spraying water onto 
the brake disc, instead of submerging the brake system before testing. 
Fourth, the rule specifies an improved heat fade test procedure based 
on European and Japanese national regulations, which share the same 
test procedure and performance requirements. Fifth, the rule specifies 
performance requirements for antilock brake systems (ABS), if present. 
Until now, FMVSS No. 122 did not contain performance criteria for ABS, 
where present on motorcycles.\2\ Finally, the rule contains a new test 
requirement to evaluate the motorcycle's performance in the event of a 
failure in the power-assisted braking system, if so equipped.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Note, though, that we are not mandating in this rule that 
motorcycles be equipped with ABS brakes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule responds to public comments on the notice of 
proposed rulemaking \3\ (NPRM) and adopts the requirements, test 
procedures, and performance criteria of the NPRM without significant 
deviations from the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Motorcycle Brake 
Systems, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 73 FR 54020 (Sept. 17, 2008) 
(hereinafter ``FMVSS No. 122 NPRM'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notably, we have retained labeling requirements for brake systems 
components that were in FMVSS No. 122, but were not in the GTR. NHTSA 
feels strongly that those required labels identify important safety 
features and safety-related information, and they have longstanding 
applicability in FMVSS No. 122. The parties involved in developing the 
GTR understood that national regulations would continue to apply 
labeling and warning requirements of this sort when each national 
regulatory body adopted the provisions of the GTR. Since the vast 
majority of benefits from harmonization are achieved because of the 
harmonization of test procedures and performance criteria, the 
retention of unique FMVSS No. 122 labeling requirements does not reduce 
the benefits of international harmonization.
    Besides updating requirements and test procedures to help ensure 
the safety of motorcycle brake systems, today's final rule also 
provides benefits from harmonization. Motorcycle manufacturers, and 
ultimately, consumers, both here and abroad, can expect to achieve cost 
savings through the formal harmonization of differing sets of standards 
when the Contracting Parties implement the new GTR. Motorcycles are 
vehicles that are prepared for the world market. It will be more 
economically efficient to have manufacturers using the same test 
procedures and meeting the same performance requirements worldwide. 
This rule will help achieve these benefits and thus reduce the amount 
of resources utilized to test motorcycles.
    Although this final rule adds and updates FMVSS No. 122 performance 
requirements and provides benefits from harmonization, we anticipate 
that virtually all motorcycles currently sold in the U.S. can meet the 
requirements, without the need for any changes to their brake systems. 
Thus, we are not able to quantify direct safety benefits from this 
final rule.
    We have considered whether this final rule will impose additional 
costs on manufacturers, including costs associated with certifying 
motorcycles as compliant with these new tests. We expect that a limited 
number (approximately 8,000) of three-wheeled motorcycles will require 
upgraded brake systems at a cost of $13.38 per motorcycle. As a result, 
the total cost motorcycle manufacturers will incur as a result of 
today's final rule is approximately $107,040 per year. All costs that 
manufacturers may incur if they choose to certify compliance based on 
NHTSA's test procedures will be offset by cost savings from the 
elimination of test procedures under the current version of FMVSS No. 
122. For those manufacturers that choose to certify compliance by 
following NHTSA's test procedures, we anticipate that this final rule 
would result in a cost savings of less than one-tenth of a cent per 
motorcycle.
    While the agency has not been able to quantify safety benefits for 
this rule since virtually all motorcycles sold in the U.S. can 
currently meet the proposed requirements, the agency is considering 
taking several other actions to attempt to decrease motorcycle 
fatalities.\4\ Given the sources and magnitude of the safety problem 
posed by increased motorcycle fatalities, the Department of 
Transportation intends to address motorcycle safety

[[Page 51652]]

comprehensively, focusing on regulatory, as well as behavioral and 
roadway, countermeasures and strategies. In October 2007, the 
Department announced the ``Action Plan to Reduce Motorcycle 
Fatalities,'' which will help reduce motorcycle fatalities with new 
national safety and training standards, a curb on the use of 
counterfeit labeling on helmets, a new focus on motorcycle-specific 
road improvements, training for law enforcement officers on how to spot 
unsafe motorcyclists, and a broad public awareness campaign on rider 
safety.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See U.S. Department of Transportation, ``Action Plan to 
Reduce Motorcycle Fatalities,'' (October 2007), available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Communication%20&%20Consumer%20Information/Articles/Associated%20Files/4640-report2.pdf (last accessed April 
10, 2012) (hereinafter ``Action Plan to Reduce Motorcycle 
Fatalities''); National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) & Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF), ``National Agenda for 
Motorcycle Safety,'' available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/00-NHT-212-motorcycle/index.html (last 
accessed April 10, 2012); see generally http://www.nhtsa.gov/Safety/Motorcycles (last accessed April 10,2012).
    \5\ Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    FMVSS No. 122, Motorcycle brake systems, 49 CFR 571.122, took 
effect on January 1, 1974.\6\ FMVSS No. 122 specifies performance 
requirements for motorcycle brake systems. The purpose of the standard 
is to provide safe motorcycle brake performance under normal and 
emergency conditions. The safety afforded by a motorcycle's braking 
system is determined by several factors, including stopping distance, 
linear stability while stopping, fade resistance, and fade recovery. A 
safe system should have features that both guard against malfunction 
and stop the motorcycle if a malfunction should occur in the normal 
service system. FMVSS No. 122 was originally conceived to cover each of 
these aspects of brake safety by specifying equipment and performance 
requirements appropriate for both two-wheeled and three-wheeled 
motorcycles. Because motorcycles differ significantly in configuration 
from other motor vehicles, the agency established a separate brake 
standard applicable only to this vehicle category. Many of the FMVSS 
No. 122 test procedures are, however, similar to those for passenger 
cars.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Response to Petitions for Reconsideration, Motorcycle Brake 
Systems, 37 FR 11973 (June 16, 1972).
    \7\ See Brake Systems on Motorcycles Proposed Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard, 36 FR 5516 (Mar. 24, 1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only a few changes have been made to the regulation since it was 
established. In response to petitions, a 1974 final rule changed the 
application of FMVSS No. 122 requirements for low-speed motor-driven 
cycles (motorcycles with 5-brake horsepower or less whose speed 
attainable in one mile is 30 miles per hour or less).\8\ In 1978, NHTSA 
amended the FMVSS No. 122 parking brake test to clarify the test 
conditions and incorporate an interpretation applicable to three-
wheeled motorcycles.\9\ In 2001, the minimum hand lever force 
requirements for the heat fade test and water recovery test were 
decreased to facilitate the manufacture of motorcycles with combined 
braking systems.\10\ Except for the above changes, FMVSS No. 122 has 
not been amended to keep pace with the advancement of modern brake 
technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Final Rule, Motor-Driven Cycles, 39 FR 32914 (Sept. 12, 
1974).
    \9\ Final Rule, Motorcycle Brake Systems, 43 FR 46547 (Oct. 10, 
1978).
    \10\ Final Rule, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 
Motorcycle Brake Systems, 66 FR 42613 (Aug. 14, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Current Requirements of FMVSS No. 122

    FMVSS No. 122 applies to both two-wheeled and three-wheeled 
motorcycles. Among other requirements, the motorcycle manufacturer must 
ensure that each motorcycle can meet performance requirements under 
conditions specified in paragraph S6, Test conditions, and as specified 
in paragraph S7, Test procedures. The tests in S7 include pre- and 
post-burnishment effectiveness tests, a fade and recovery test, a 
partial failure test, a water recovery test, and parking brake test. At 
the end of the test procedure sequence, the brake system must pass a 
durability inspection. All stops must be made without lockup of any 
wheel.
    Equipment. Each motorcycle is required to have either a split 
service brake system or two independently actuated brake systems. The 
former system encompasses a service brake system combined with a hand 
operated parking brake system for three-wheeled motorcycles. If a 
motorcycle has a hydraulic service brake system, it must also have a 
reservoir for each brake circuit, and a master cylinder reservoir label 
advising the proper grade of brake fluid. If the service brake system 
is a split hydraulic type, a failure indicator lamp is required. 
Additionally, three-wheeled motorcycles must be equipped with a 
friction type parking brake with a solely mechanical means to retain 
engagement. The service brake system must be installed so that the 
lining thickness of the drum brake shoes may be visually inspected, 
either directly or by using a mirror without removing the drums, and so 
that disc brake friction lining thickness may be visually inspected 
without removing the pads.
    Pre- and post-burnish tests. The service brake system and each 
independently actuated service brake system on each motorcycle must be 
capable of stopping within specified distances from 30 miles per hour 
(mph) and 60 mph. The brakes are then burnished by making 200 stops 
from 30 mph at 12 feet per second per second (fps\2\). The service 
brake system must then be capable of stopping at specified distances 
from 80 mph and from a speed divisible by 5 mph that is 4 mph to 8 mph 
less than the maximum motorcycle speed. The post-burnish tests are 
conducted in the same way as the pre-burnish stops, and the service 
brakes must be capable of stopping the motorcycle within the post-
burnish specified stopping distances.
    Fade and recovery test. The fade and recovery test compares the 
braking performance of the motorcycle before and after ten 60-mph stops 
at a deceleration of not less than 15 fps\2\. As a check test, three 
baseline stops \11\ are conducted from 30 mph at 10 to 11 fps\2\, with 
the maximum brake lever and maximum pedal forces recorded during each 
stop, and averaged over the three baseline stops. Ten 60-mph stops are 
then conducted at a deceleration rate of not less than 15 fps\2\, 
followed immediately by five fade recovery stops from 30 mph at a 
deceleration rate of 10 to 11 fps\2\. The maximum brake pedal and lever 
forces measured during the fifth recovery stop must be within plus 20 
pounds and minus 10 pounds of the baseline average maximum brake pedal 
and lever forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The baseline check is used to establish a specific 
motorcycle's pre-test performance to provide a basis for comparison 
with post-test performance. This comparison is intended to ensure 
adequate brake performance, at reasonable lever and pedal forces, 
after numerous high speed or wet brake stops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Partial failure test. In the event of a pressure component leakage 
failure, the remaining portion of the service brake system must 
continue to operate and shall be capable of stopping the motorcycle 
from 30 mph and 60 mph within specified stopping distances. The brake 
failure indicator light must activate when the master cylinder fluid 
level decreases below the minimum specified level.
    Water recovery test. The water recovery test compares the braking 
performance of the motorcycle before and after the motorcycle brakes 
are immersed in water for two minutes. Three baseline stops are 
conducted from 30 mph at 10 to 11 fps\2\, with the maximum brake lever 
and pedal forces recorded during each stop, and averaged over the three 
baseline stops. The motorcycle brakes are then immersed in water for 
two minutes, followed immediately by five water recovery stops from 30 
mph at a deceleration rate of 10 to 11 fps\2\. The maximum brake pedal 
and lever forces measured during the fifth recovery stop must be within

[[Page 51653]]

plus 20 pounds and minus 10 pounds of the baseline average maximum 
brake pedal force and the lever force.
    Parking brake test. For motorcycles required to be equipped with a 
parking brake system, such system must be able to hold the motorcycle 
on a 30 percent grade, in both forward and reverse directions, for 5 
minutes. A parking brake indicator lamp must be provided.

B. Harmonization Efforts

    Globally, there are several existing regulations, directives, and 
standards that pertain to motorcycle brake systems. As all share 
similarities, the Contracting Parties to the 1998 Agreement under WP.29 
tentatively determined that the development of a GTR under the 1998 
Agreement would be beneficial.
    In an effort to select the best of existing performance 
requirements for a GTR, the U.S. and Canada conducted analyses of the 
relative stringency of three national motorcycle brake system 
regulations. These were the UNECE Regulation No. 78, FMVSS No. 122, and 
the Japanese Safety Standard JSS 12-61. The subsequent reports, along 
with proposed provisions of a GTR, were presented at meetings of the 
Working Party for Brakes and Running Gear (GRRF),\12\ and were made 
available in the NPRM docket.\13\ While using different methodologies, 
the results from the U.S./Canada report were similar to an industry led 
report that examined the issue under the GRRF.\14\ These studies 
completed by the U.S., Canada, and the industry provided the basis for 
the development of the technical requirements of the GTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The GRRF is made up of delegates from many countries around 
the world, and who have voting privileges. Representatives from 
manufacturing and consumer groups also attend and participate in the 
GRRF and informal working groups that are developing GTRs. Those 
that chose not to participate are kept apprised of the GTR progress 
from progress reports which are presented at the GRRF meetings and 
then posted on the UN's Web site.
    \13\  See Docket Nos. NHTSA-2008-0150-0005.1, NHTSA-2008-0150-
0006.1.
    \14\  See Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0007.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The informal group used the feedback from the GRRF presentations to 
assist with the completion of the proposed GTR, a copy of which can be 
found in the NPRM docket.\15\ Where national regulations or standards 
address the same subject, e.g. dry stop or heat fade performance 
requirements, the informal group reviewed comparative data on the 
relative stringency of the requirements from the research and studies 
and included the most stringent options. Additional testing was 
conducted to confirm or refine the testing and performance 
requirements. Qualitative issues, such as which wet brake test to 
include, were discussed on the basis of the original rationales and the 
appropriateness of the tests to modern conditions and technologies. In 
each of these steps, specific technical issues were raised, discussed, 
and resolved, as discussed in the NPRM and below. The informal working 
group held a total of eight meetings concerning the development of the 
GTR. In November 2006, WP.29 approved the GTR on Motorcycle Brake 
Systems, and established it in the Global Registry as Global Technical 
Regulation No. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0002.1. The first formal 
proposal for a GTR concerning motorcycle brake systems was presented 
during the 58th GRRF session in September 2005. A more detailed 
report on the technical details, deliberations and conclusions, 
which led to the proposed GTR, was provided separately as informal 
document No. GRRF-58-16. See Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0004.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the NPRM, the GTR on motorcycle brake systems 
consists of a compilation of the most stringent and relevant test 
procedures and performance requirements from current standards and 
regulations. As a result of the comparison process, the selected 
performance requirements of the GTR are mainly drawn from the UNECE 
Regulation No. 78, the FMVSS No. 122 and the Japanese Safety Standard 
JSS 12-61 (JSS 12-61). The GTR is comprised of several fundamental 
tests, each with their respective test procedures and performance 
requirements. These tests and procedures are listed below along with 
the national regulation on which they are based:

 Burnish procedure (FMVSS No. 122)
 Dry stop test with each service brake control actuated 
separately (UNECE Regulation No. 78/JSS 12-61)
 Dry stop test with all service brake systems applied 
simultaneously (FMVSS No. 122)
 High speed test (JSS 12-61)
 Wet brake test (UNECE Regulation No. 78/JSS 12-61)
 Heat fade test (UNECE Regulation No. 78/JSS 12-61)
 Parking brake test (UNECE Regulation No. 78/JSS 12-61)
 ABS tests (UNECE Regulation No. 78/JSS 12-61)
 Partial failure test--split service brake systems (FMVSS No. 
122)
 Power-assisted braking system failure test (new)

    The GTR process was transparent to country delegates, industry 
representatives, public interest groups, and other interested parties. 
Information regarding the meetings and negotiations was publicly 
available through notices published periodically by the agency and UN 
Web site.\16\ See the NPRM for additional discussion of the 
harmonization process.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Recommendations for Establishing Global Technical 
Regulations Under the United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe 
1998 Global Agreement, Motor Vehicle Safety, 66 FR 4893, Docket No. 
NHTSA-00-7538 (Jan. 18, 2001); NHTSA's Activities Under the United 
Nations Economic Commission for Europe 1998 Global Agreement, 69 FR 
60460, Docket No. NHTSA-03-14395 (Oct. 8, 2004); NHTSA's Activities 
Under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 1998 Global 
Agreement, 71 FR 59582, Docket No. NHTSA-2003-14395 (Oct. 10, 2006); 
see also http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29grrf/grrf-infmotobrake7.html for a record of all GRRF meetings and documents 
presented therein (last accessed April 26, 2010).
    \17\ FMVSS No. 122 NPRM, 73 FR at 54022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Comments Received in Response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    The U.S., as a Contracting Party of the 1998 Agreement that voted 
in favor of establishing this GTR at the November 15, 2006 Session of 
the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement, is obligated under the 
1998 Agreement to initiate the process for adopting the provisions of 
the GTR.\18\ On September 17, 2008, NHTSA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to update FMVSS No. 122 that was based on 
the Motorcycle Brake Systems GTR, which satisfied the U.S. obligations 
under the 1998 Agreement noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ While the 1998 Agreement obligates such Contracting Parties 
to initiate rulemaking within one year of the establishment of the 
GTR, it leaves the ultimate decision of whether to adopt the GTR 
into their domestic law to the parties themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the NPRM, NHTSA received comments from the following 
parties: The Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC),\19\ American Honda 
Motor Company, Inc. (Honda),\20\ Harley-Davidson Motor Company (Harley-
Davidson),\21\ Robert Bosch LLC (Bosch),\22\ the Insurance Institute 
for Highway Safety (IIHS),\23\ ASTM International (ASTM),\24\ SMO 
Group, L.L.C. (SMO),\25\ and the American Association for Justice 
(AAJ).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Motorcycle Industry Council Inc. Comments, Docket No. 
NHTSA-2008-0150-0017.1 (hereinafter ``MIC Comments'').
    \20\ American Honda Motor Co., Inc. Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-
2008-0150-0018.1 (hereinafter ``Honda Comments'').
    \21\ Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-
0012 (hereinafter ``Harley-Davidson Comments'').
    \22\ Robert Bosch LLC Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-
0016.1 (hereinafter ``Robert Bosch Comments'').
    \23\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Comments, Docket No. 
NHTSA-2008-0150-0015.1.
    \24\ ASTM International Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-
0011.1.
    \25\ SMO Group, L.L.C. Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-
0013.1.
    \26\ American Association for Justice Comments, Docket No. 
NHTSA-2008-0150-0014.1.

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

[[Page 51654]]

    All comments received were timely, and they are each considered in 
this final rule and discussed below, with one exception. The AAJ 
commented on the language of the preamble concerning implied 
preemption, and its comment was neither related to the proposed 
regulatory text, nor to motorcycle braking nor to motorcycle 
safety.\27\ Because that comment did not specifically relate to the 
proposal, and because NHTSA has already responded to a similar AAJ 
comment in the context of another Federal Register notice,\28\ we do 
not address the AAJ comment any further here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The AAJ has submitted to several other rulemaking dockets 
similar comments regarding the agency's preamble discussions of 
preemption.
    \28\ See Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Electric-
Powered Vehicles; Electrolyte Spillage and Electrical Shock 
Protection, 75 FR 33515, 33524-25 (Jun. 12, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments were generally supportive of NHTSA's intent to harmonize 
FMVSS No. 122 with other nations' and regulatory bodies' standards 
through the adoption of the GTR. The substantive comments received were 
concerned mainly with test procedures rather than with brake system 
design requirements. Specifically, Harley-Davidson, Honda, and the 
Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) all commented on each of the 
following three issues, which were the main issues in their submittals:
     The NHTSA proposal in the NPRM specified stopping distance 
as the sole compliance criterion for several performance tests in FMVSS 
No. 122 while leaving out the option to use Mean Fully Developed 
Deceleration (MFDD) where applicable. Commenters requested that NHTSA 
include MFDD as an alternative compliance option for measuring stopping 
performance.
     The NPRM specified that Peak Braking Coefficient (PBC) be 
measured by an ASTM skid-trailer method only. It did not include other 
methods that were stated in the GTR for measurement of test surface 
friction coefficient. Commenters requested that the agency allow 
manufacturers the option to choose which test method it uses to measure 
PBC.
     The NHTSA proposal changed ``nominal PBC'' as it appears 
in the GTR to just ``PBC,'' i.e., NHTSA removed the word ``nominal'' in 
specifying the friction coefficient of test track surfaces used for 
motorcycle brake testing. Commenters requested that NHTSA retain the 
GTR term ``nominal,'' based on best engineering practices.

III. General Improvements to FMVSS No. 122

    Here, we discuss the proposed general amendments and improvements 
to FMVSS No. 122, any comments received on these proposed improvements, 
and the agency's response to those comments. Where no comments were 
received on a proposed amendment, or a certain aspect of an amendment, 
NHTSA has generally adopted those proposals in accordance with the 
rationale detailed in the NPRM. Although this final rule states as such 
for each amendment, we generally will not repeat the rationale and 
justification for aspects of the proposal that did not receive comment. 
We refer readers to the NPRM for the basis for those amendments.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See FMVSS No. 122 NPRM, 73 FR at 54023-54027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. New Terminology

    The NPRM proposed to revise or add definitions in FMVSS No. 122 
(paragraph S4) where necessary to define terms used in the proposed 
regulatory text, and we are largely retaining the definitions as 
proposed in the NPRM. In order to streamline the proposed regulatory 
text to more closely reflect the GTR text, some of the new proposed 
terms were common terminology and definitions based on the UN document 
titled ``Special Resolution No. 1 Concerning the Common Definitions of 
Vehicle Categories, Masses and Dimensions (S.R.1)'' \30\ (UN Doc. 
S.R.1) developed for the purposes of the GTRs. Thus, the NPRM proposed 
to add certain new definitions to Sec.  571.122 S4, Definitions, that 
may be similar to existing 49 CFR Part 571 definitions. For example, 
current FMVSS No. 122 specifies that performance requirements must be 
met when the ``motorcycle weight is unloaded vehicle weight plus 200 
pounds.'' \31\ This is effectively equivalent to the mass term 
``lightly loaded'' in the proposed rule, which is the testing condition 
specified for the proposed dry stop test (all service brake controls 
actuated), the high-speed test, the antilock brake systems tests, and 
the partial failure test.\32\ These proposed terms, some of which may 
be similar or equivalent to existing terms defined elsewhere in 49 CFR 
Part 571, are used in the motorcycle brakes GTR in an effort to 
streamline the GTR and maximize harmonization benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations 
(WP.29), Special Resolution No. 1 Concerning the Common Definitions 
of Vehicle Categories, Masses and Dimensions (S.R.1), U.N. Doc. 
TRANS/WP.29/1045 (Sept. 15, 2005), available at http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2005/wp29/TRANS-WP29-1045e.pdf (last 
accessed April 26, 2010).
    \31\ 49 CFR 571.122, S6.1. ``Unloaded vehicle weight'' is 
defined under 49 CFR 571.3(b) to mean ``the weight of a vehicle with 
maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the 
vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are 
ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use.''
    \32\ Lightly loaded means the sum of unladen vehicle mass (mass 
of the vehicle with bodywork and all factory fitted equipment, and 
fuel tanks filled to at least 90 percent) and driver mass ``plus 15 
kg for test equipment, or the laden condition, whichever is less.'' 
FMVSS No. 122 S4, Definitions (proposed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the proposed rule divided motorcycles into five 
categories, which are referenced in the GTR. These motorcycle 
categories are based on number of wheels and maximum speed, and were 
originally defined in the UN Doc. S.R.1, as amended in May 2007.\33\ We 
included these categories in the definitions portion of proposed FMVSS 
No. 122 because under the GTR some performance tests do not apply to 
certain motorcycle categories, and certain motorcycle categories have 
different performance requirements than others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See WP.29, Amendment to Special Resolution No. 1 Concerning 
the Common Definitions of Vehicle Categories, Masses, and 
Dimensions, U.N. Doc. ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1045/Amend.1 (May 9, 2007), 
available at http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29fdoc/1000/ECE-TRANS-WP29-1045a1e.pdf (last accessed April 26, 
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Category 3-1 and category 3-3 motorcycles are two-wheeled 
motorcycles. Category 3-1 motorcycles are two-wheeled motorcycles with 
an engine cylinder capacity not exceeding 50 cm\3\ and a maximum design 
speed not exceeding 50 kilometers per hour (km/h). Category 3-3 
motorcycles are two-wheeled motorcycles with an engine cylinder 
capacity exceeding 50 cm\3\ or a maximum design speed exceeding 50 km/
h. Category 3-2 motorcycles are three-wheeled motorcycles of any wheel 
arrangement with an engine cylinder capacity not exceeding 50 cm\3\ and 
a maximum design speed not exceeding 50 km/h. Category 3-4 motorcycles 
are those manufactured with three wheels asymmetrically arranged in 
relation to the longitudinal median plane with an engine cylinder 
capacity exceeding 50 cm\3\ or a maximum design speed exceeding 50 km/
h. Finally, category 3-5 motorcycles are motorcycles manufactured with 
three wheels symmetrically arranged in relation to the longitudinal 
median plane with an engine cylinder capacity exceeding 50 cm\3\ or a 
maximum design speed exceeding 50 km/h.
    Motorcycle categories. Based on comments from both Harley-Davidson

[[Page 51655]]

and the MIC regarding inconsistencies between category 3-4 and category 
3-5 requirements, NHTSA has identified a series of mistakes in the 
proposed regulatory text relating to the identification of these two 
categories. For example, Harley-Davidson and the MIC commented that the 
stopping distances for category 3-4 and 3-5 motorcycles listed in Table 
2 (Performance requirements, Dry stop test--single brake control 
actuated) appear to have been incorrectly reversed in the first two 
sections of the table: Single Brake System--Front Wheel(s) Braking 
Only, and Single Brake System--Rear Wheel(s) Braking Only.\34\ Proposed 
regulatory text Table 2 listed these tests as inapplicable to category 
3-4 motorcycles and listed a stopping distance for category 3-5 
motorcycles. These commenters noted that under the proposed regulatory 
text, stopping distances would be inapplicable for category 3-5 
vehicles in these two sections because those vehicles are required to 
have a combined or split service brake. However, as noted by the 
commenters, motorcycle-sidecar combinations of category 3-4 would still 
be permitted to be equipped with separate brakes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Harley-Davidson Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0012 
at 4; MIC Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0017.1 at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These commenters further stated that it similarly thought the 
reference to category 3-5 in Table 4 (Performance requirements, Power-
assisted braking system failure test) should be category 3-4 because 
category 3-5 vehicles will carry split service systems or combined 
break systems (CBS) and are covered in the subsequent section of Table 
4.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: The regulatory text of the NPRM was based on a 
version of the GTR in which the definitions for category 3-4 
motorcycles and category 3-5 motorcycles were listed incorrectly. 
Specifically, the category 3-4 and 3-5 notations were actually 
interchanged with each other. This error was addressed in the GTR by a 
correction document which stated that the text ``3-4'' as it appears 
throughout the GTR shall be replaced with ``3-5,'' and the text ``3-5'' 
shall be replaced with the text ``3-4.'' \36\ This correction results 
in the GTR associating category 3-4 requirements with sidecar-equipped 
motorcycles and category 3-5 requirements with symmetric three-wheeled 
motorcycles, or ``trikes,'' as intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Global Technical Regulation No. 3, Corrigendum 1, 
Motorcycle Brake Systems, U.N. Doc. ECE/TRANS/180/Add.3/Corr.2 (Jan. 
29, 2008), available at http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29registry/gtr3.html (last accessed April 26, 
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the regulatory text of the NPRM corresponded closely with 
that of the GTR, this mix-up was carried forward in the NPRM. Thus, 
there are a variety of inconsistencies in the requirements for category 
3-4 and category 3-5 motorcycles throughout the NPRM regulatory text. 
This includes Table 2 as noted by the commenters. Although the 
definitions of ``Category 3-4 motorcycle'' and ``Category 3-5 
motorcycle'' given in paragraph S4 of the proposed regulatory text are 
correct, most of the subsequent occurrences throughout the regulatory 
text are incorrect. This mistake is easily remedied by replacing ``3-
4'' with ``3-5,'' and vice versa, in each place where requirements 
apply to one or the other category. We have corrected the final rule 
regulatory text by applying these corrections in each appropriate 
instance. Concerning Table 2, to maintain the desired ordering of 
categories, we have moved each stopping distance specification listed 
for category 3-5 to the corresponding category 3-4 row, and listed 
``not applicable'' in each category 3-5 row. Finally, we have made a 
related clarification in subsection S6.5.2.2(d)(3) of the regulatory 
text, to add a specification of category 3-5.
    ``Lightly loaded'' definition. The MIC commented that in the 
parenthetical included in this definition, it was unclear as to which 
paragraphs the text was intending to refer.\37\ The proposed definition 
of ``lightly loaded'' referred to ``paragraphs 4.9.4 to 4.9.7'' in a 
parenthetical, and no such paragraphs existed in the proposed 
regulatory text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ MIC Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0017.1 at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: The proposed range quoted above was referring to 
the requirements as they were listed in the GTR. The proposed rule 
should have listed the paragraphs as they were associated with the 
proposed regulatory text. The GTR paragraphs referenced are a series of 
the ABS test procedures. The corresponding paragraphs in NHTSA's 
proposed regulatory text were S6.9.4 through S6.9.7. We have made this 
change in the final regulatory text.
    ``Unladen vehicle mass'' definition. The MIC suggested that the 
proposed definition of ``lightly loaded'' should use the term 
``motorcycle,'' as opposed to the term ``vehicle'' in the 
definition.\38\ They suggest that perhaps ``motorcycle'' should be used 
in place of the term ``vehicle'' elsewhere in the proposed standard as 
well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: Although the term ``motorcycle'' is used 
throughout the current FMVSS No. 122, we are not making this change as 
the commenter suggested. The term ``vehicle'' is the one used in the 
GTR's regulatory definitions as well as in the UN Doc. S.R.1, which is 
the source document for the vehicle categorization used in the GTR. For 
these reasons, and in order to streamline the GTR and to maximize the 
benefits of harmonization, we are in favor of keeping the term 
``vehicle'' as used throughout the proposed regulatory text.
    CBS. Bosch commented that electro-mechanical CBS (eCBS) should be 
distinguished from conventional CBS because the failure mode for eCBS 
is different from CBS.\39\ Bosch suggested that the paragraph S4 
definitions should exclude eCBS and that this could be accomplished by 
rewording the definition for each motorcycle category to say that CBS 
is ``A service brake system * * * mechanically linked and actuated by a 
single control.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Bosch Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0016.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bosch differentiates eCBS from conventional CBS because eCBS 
systems have no mechanical or hydraulic link between the front and rear 
brake circuits. With eCBS, the activation of a front or rear service 
brake by a rear or front brake control, respectively, is accomplished 
by purely electronic means. Bosch stated that the distinction between 
eCBS and conventional CBS is important because the failure mode for 
eCBS is different than for CBS, i.e., failed eCBS performs just like 
conventional, separate front and rear brakes. Bosch explained that 
``[a]n eCBS is subject to system failure, deactivation, and 
degradation, which results in a system that is functionally equivalent 
to a non-CBS with the corresponding performance limits.'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bosch commented that their proposed re-definition to make eCBS 
subject only to the performance requirements for single brake systems 
(outlined above) is appropriate because of unique characteristics of 
eCBS that are not accounted for in the proposed rule. Bosch pointed out 
that an eCBS, unlike a CBS, may be equipped with a deactivation switch, 
a low-speed mode, speed-dependent brake force distribution, or a 
variety of rider-selectable modes that tune the system for riding 
conditions. Bosch stated that, ``[t]hese additional eCBS 
characteristics differentiate an eCBS from a CBS and prescribe that the 
performance

[[Page 51656]]

requirements for a CBS are not always applicable for an eCBS.'' \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bosch suggested that, as an alternative to excluding eCBS from the 
regulatory definitions, NHTSA could instead define eCBS separately from 
CBS and provide separate performance requirements to account for the 
different eCBS failure modes, similar to the way that ABS electrical 
failure is treated in S6.9.8 of the proposed FMVSS No. 122 regulatory 
text.\42\ According to Bosch, this would have to include an exception 
to the performance requirements defined in Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: Bosch's comment suggests that NHTSA should include 
specific test procedures to address the possibility of a failed eCBS 
system. As Bosch acknowledges, this would entail defining eCBS 
separately from CBS, and/or adding separate test procedures for eCBS. 
If separate test procedures were added, eCBS would be treated similarly 
to ABS, for which the NPRM has special procedures, including the 
electrical failure test of S6.9.8.
    Bosch seems to suggest that system failure is more likely in the 
case of an eCBS than a conventional, mechanical CBS, which would seem 
logical because of the purely electronic link between front and rear 
brake circuits. Certainly, eCBS could be designed so as to be readily 
deactivated, such as by equipping the motorcycle with an on/off switch 
for that purpose. In contrast, deactivation would not necessarily be 
easily accomplished with conventional CBS, but much would depend on the 
details of the CBS system design.
    Since eCBS systems currently are not in use, it is difficult for us 
to evaluate whether adding specific test procedures to address eCBS 
system failure is appropriate. Furthermore, in the FMVSS No. 122 
proposal, there were no CBS-specific requirements that an eCBS would or 
should be incapable of meeting, nor is eCBS addressed in the GTR 
separately from CBS. Since the GTR does not include any proposal for 
failed CBS performance and since no eCBS system is currently available 
commercially, the agency believes that establishing failed systems 
performance requirements for eCBS would be premature. Therefore, we are 
electing not to make any changes related to eCBS at this time, but we 
will evaluate in the future whether such accommodations are necessary.

B. Measurement of Performance Using Stopping Distance

    The GTR specifies stopping performance requirements in terms of 
both stopping distance and MFDD. The NPRM proposed stopping distance as 
the sole compliance criterion for several performance tests in proposed 
FMVSS No. 122 because, as noted in the proposal, stopping distance is a 
longstanding compliance criterion in FMVSS No. 122 as well as in 
NHTSA's standards for brake performance of both light vehicles and 
heavy vehicles.\43\ We further stated that the Executive Committee of 
the 1998 Agreement and WP.29 are aware that the U.S. intended to make 
these choices as allowed in the GTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ FMVSS No. 122 NPRM, 73 FR at 54034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Harley-Davidson, Honda, and the MIC each suggested that the agency 
should include the alternative criterion of MFDD, which is a calculated 
value based on both speed and stopping distance measurements.\44\ MFDD 
and stopping distance are both included in the GTR as alternative 
performance measures in several of the performance tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Honda Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0018.1 at 2; MIC 
Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0017.1 at 2; Harley-Davidson 
Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0012 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Harley-Davidson commented that, based on its significant experience 
with MFDD, a vehicle that passes the stopping distance measure will 
also pass MFDD. Harley-Davidson also commented that the GTR and the 
UNECE Regulation No. 78 allow either measure to be used. Further, 
Harley-Davidson stated that some of the international inspection 
agencies prefer MFDD, and that MFDD removes human factors from brake 
performance testing. Harley-Davidson pointed out that an MFDD-like 
procedure is already incorporated into the proposed regulatory text, 
specifically in proposed section S6.7.3.2(d)(1) pertaining to heat fade 
tests.\45\ Harley-Davidson stated that as a result of inclusion of MFDD 
into the heat fade test requirements, manufacturers and test facilities 
will be required to apply MFDD for some measures. Finally, Harley-
Davidson noted that the commentary accompanying the GTR recommends 
using the MFDD measure ``to maintain consistency in the results.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Although Harley-Davidson's comments referred to this 
provision as part of the ``wet fade tests,'' we will refer to the 
referenced proposed tests as the ``heat fade tests,'' consistent 
with the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Honda likewise requested that MFDD be included in NHTSA's final 
rule. Honda commented that the GTR did not give individual regulating 
bodies the discretion to exclude MFDD. Honda stated that the ``GTR does 
not specify the option for each region to select only one method of 
measurement.'' Further, Honda noted that ``the MFDD method has been 
utilized by Honda as the primary method for determining stopping 
performance and has found it to be more reliable and repeatable than 
the distance method.''
    Similarly, the MIC pointed out that the GTR includes both MFDD and 
stopping distance as alternative performance criteria, which allows the 
manufacturer to choose to measure brake performance by either 
deceleration or stopping distance. It also noted that deceleration-
based performance tests are already part of NHTSA's proposal, in 
proposed paragraphs S6.6.3 et seq., and in paragraph S5.3.2, which 
refers to ``continuous deceleration recording.'' The MIC took issue 
with the rationale NHTSA gave for excluding MFDD:

    The reason given [in the NPRM] for mandating brake performance 
measurement exclusively by stopping distance is ``to enhance the 
enforceability of the Standard as opposed to providing optional 
performance measures,'' and that ``this is consistent with how 
performance requirements are stated in other Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standards.'' We don't agree that either is sufficient to 
justify departure from the GTR and not in the best interest of 
harmonization.

    The MIC, Harley-Davidson, and Honda each requested that NHTSA 
incorporate the MFDD as an alternative performance measure in all 
appropriate tests in the final rule.
    Agency Response: We are declining to adopt these commenters' 
suggestions to allow manufacturers a choice of performance measures in 
certain performance tests. As explained below, providing manufacturers 
with an option for compliance in FMVSS test procedures is not common 
because it presents a substantial enforcement difficulty for the 
agency. Moreover, NHTSA participated in the development of the GTR and 
during that process reached agreement with the other parties that we 
would continue to use stopping distance in all appropriate FMVSS No. 
122 test procedures. The inclusion of a stopping distance measurement 
procedure was an important factor in U.S. approval of the GTR.
    When NHTSA stated in the NPRM that specifying stopping distance 
enhances enforceability and referenced other FMVSSs to explain how 
performance criteria are specified elsewhere by the agency, we meant 
that for various reasons (detailed below)

[[Page 51657]]

NHTSA believes stopping distance is a better performance criteria than 
a measurement of deceleration, and we do not ordinarily provide 
manufacturer options for compliance because it can create an 
enforcement problem for the agency. For example, if we allow two 
different measures of braking performance in FMVSS No. 122 and, when 
testing for compliance, NHTSA measures stopping distance and finds a 
failure to meet the minimum stopping distance requirement test, NHTSA 
would then be required to conduct additional testing to calculate MFDD.
    Additionally, we believe that stopping distance is a preferable 
measurement of performance because MFDD assumes a certain level of 
brake system responsiveness and does not consider performance over the 
entire braking event. We believe the stopping distance measure is less 
design-restrictive because it allows a manufacturer to develop brake 
performance for the entire range of a braking event. Similarly, since 
it accounts for the distance traveled between the time a brake lever or 
pedal is applied and the time the motorcycle actually begins to 
decelerate, stopping distance addresses the potential problem of slow-
acting brake systems.
    Further, none of the commenters presented any new information on 
this issue. Nor did any commenter present data to support assertions 
about accuracy of MFDD, for example, that MFDD is ``more reliable and 
repeatable than the distance method.'' \46\ Since stopping distance is 
used as one of the measured values in the equation for calculating 
MFDD, the accuracy of MFDD depends to a great extent on stopping 
distance accuracy. MFDD is not a measured value but is calculated using 
measurements of speed and stopping distance. Because it is a factor in 
the MFDD calculation, stopping distance still would have to be measured 
even if MFDD was the specified compliance criterion in the NHTSA 
standard. Consequently, there is little additional test burden in 
having to collect stopping distance data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Honda Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0018.1 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the commenter that stated that the commentary 
accompanying the GTR recommends using the MFDD measure ``to maintain 
consistency in the results,'' we point out that this GTR preamble 
language was referring to the difference between the UNECE Regulation 
No. 78 specification of MFDD, and the JSS 12-61 specification of 
vehicle mean saturated deceleration (MSD). In the relevant portion of 
the GTR preamble, the text was discussing the difference between MFDD 
and MSD, and then stated that ``[i]n order to maintain consistency in 
the results, the MFDD was adopted [instead of MSD] to measure braking 
deceleration performance.'' \47\ Thus, NHTSA does not believe this 
phrase should be taken out of context and used to characterize the GTR 
preamble discussion of MFDD versus stopping distance. In the GTR, the 
performance requirements for the different tests were as specified in 
the respective national regulation on which the test was based. 
However, based on U.S. insistence, where the basis of a test was 
performance measured by MFDD, the GTR also specified a stopping 
distance equivalent performance measure, since the U.S. would not 
support a GTR that specified only measurement of performance using 
MFDD. All GTR performance requirements refer to both measurements of 
stopping distance and MFDD in the table in paragraph 4.3.3 of the 
GTR.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0002.1 at 11-12.
    \48\ Id. at 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to Harley-Davidson's observation that the heat fade 
test measures performance by referring to MFDD, we do not agree. The 
commenter referenced proposed paragraph S6.7.3.2(d)(1), which describes 
the force that is to be applied to the brake lever when actuated during 
the heating stops: ``For the first stop: The constant control force 
that achieves a vehicle deceleration rate of 3.0-3.5 m/s \2\ while the 
vehicle is decelerating between 80 percent and 10 percent of the 
specified speed.'' Since this specification is a way to determine 
force, stopping distance is not appropriate here. Further, the 
specified braking force to heat the brakes is not a performance 
requirement. In that paragraph, the test rider is just heating the 
brake. Paragraph S6.7.4, Hot brake stop--test conditions and procedure, 
then specifies how to test the hot brakes and paragraph S6.7.5, 
Performance requirements, specifies the comparative performance 
requirements between the baseline stop measurements and the hot brake 
stop measurements, in terms of stopping distance. Therefore, the use of 
a deceleration specification to describe the actuation force that a 
test rider is to use in the heat fade test is not inconsistent with the 
use of stopping distance for all performance measurements.
    The MIC similarly commented that proposed paragraph S5.3.2 
describes ``continuous deceleration recording,'' and stated that 
proposed paragraphs S6.6.3 et seq. reference deceleration measurements 
for wet and heat fade conditions even though it is not called MFDD. As 
explained above, the heat fade test does not describe performance 
requirements in terms of deceleration, but merely uses deceleration to 
specify how to determine how much force to apply to a brake when a test 
rider is actuating the brake for the purpose of heating it. The 
deceleration measurement specified in section S6.6.3 (wet brake test) 
is for average deceleration over the whole duration of the stop in 
accordance with paragraph S5.3.2. This is not the same as MFDD as the 
MIC suggested. MFDD is the vehicle deceleration calculated between 80 
and 10 percent of the vehicle initial speed, not the deceleration from 
initial speed to full stop.
    NHTSA notes that the 100 km/h dry stop test that was developed from 
the current FMVSS No. 122 specifies performance in terms of stopping 
distance only. It does not specify a deceleration-based criterion like 
MFDD. Similarly, the ABS stopping distance performance tests on low and 
high friction surfaces specify performance measures in terms of 
stopping distance only. Hence, in these tests, there is no alternative 
to measuring and recording stopping distance.
    Finally, we note that the use of stopping distance in the FMVSS 
does not preclude the use of MFDD by manufacturers or other parties. As 
long as there is a basis for correlating with the FMVSS method, the 
test procedure used to certify a motorcycle brake system is left to the 
manufacturer's discretion. Specifically, FMVSSs do not require 
manufacturers to test every motor vehicle or piece of motor vehicle 
equipment (e.g., tires) to the specifications in each safety standard. 
The FMVSSs set performance standards that motor vehicles and motor 
vehicle equipment must meet when tested by the agency in accordance 
with the test procedures specified in the FMVSS associated with that 
performance requirement. Under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ``a 
manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle 
equipment [must] certify * * * that the vehicle or equipment complies 
with applicable [FMVSSs].'' \49\ Under this enforcement mechanism, 
known as ``self certification,'' the burden for ensuring that all new 
vehicles and equipment comply with Federal regulations is borne by the 
manufacturer. NHTSA does not perform any pre-sale testing, approval, or

[[Page 51658]]

certification of vehicles or equipment, whether of foreign or domestic 
manufacture, before introduction into the U.S. retail market. To ensure 
compliance with agency regulations, NHTSA randomly tests certified 
vehicles or equipment (in accordance with the test procedures laid out 
in the regulations) to determine whether the vehicles or equipment fail 
to comply with applicable standards. For such enforcement checks, NHTSA 
purchases vehicles and equipment, which are then tested according to 
the procedures specified in the standards. If the vehicle or equipment 
passes the test, no further action is taken. If the vehicle or 
equipment fails, NHTSA has the authority to request additional 
information from the manufacturer on the basis for certification and to 
assess civil penalties for any confirmed violation.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 49 U.S.C. 30115(a).
    \50\ See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 30165, 30166 (safety standards); 49 
U.S.C. 32308, 32309 (consumer information); 49 U.S.C. 32507 (bumper 
standards); 49 U.S.C. 32706, 32709 (odometer fraud).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act \51\ (nor 
other statutes NHTSA administers) nor NHTSA standards and regulations 
require that a manufacturer base its certifications on any particular 
tests, any number of specified tests or, for that matter, any tests at 
all. A manufacturer is required to exercise due care in certifying its 
motor vehicles. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to 
determine initially what test results, computer simulations, 
engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to 
certify that its vehicles comply with applicable Federal safety 
standards. Thus, manufacturers and test laboratories can measure 
performance using stopping distance, or another method, for their own 
certification purposes as long as they can reasonably correlate test 
results using their chosen method with those using the FMVSS procedure 
and show that their certification tests provide a sound basis for 
compliance with the safety standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 
Public Law 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 (1966) (now codified, as amended, at 
49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Motorcycle Test Speed and Corrected Stopping Distance

    The GTR set deceleration or stopping distance performance 
requirements for a specified initial test speed. While professional 
test riders can approach this initial test speed, it is unlikely that 
the test will be started at the exact speed specified, affecting the 
stopping distance measurement. The current FMVSS No. 122 does not 
specify a speed tolerance for this potential variation, but consistent 
with the GTR, the proposed rule specified Japan's existing general 
tolerance of  5 km/h in S6.1.4.
    As explained in the NPRM, a method for correcting the measured 
stopping distance (in the event of the actual test speed deviating from 
the specified test speed, but within the  5 km/h tolerance) 
was proposed to compensate for the difference between the specified 
test speed and the actual speed where the brakes were applied (see 
S5.3.1(b)).\52\ The MIC commented that the paragraph S6.1.4 reference 
to the proposed corrected stopping distance method in the proposed 
regulatory text appeared to be incorrect.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ FMVSS No. 122 NPRM, 73 FR at 54024.
    \53\ MIC Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0017.1 at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: We agree with the MIC. Paragraph S6.1.4 of the 
proposed regulatory text referred to the stopping distance correction 
formula as being in paragraph S5.3.2(b). The actual stopping distance 
correction formula was listed in paragraph S5.3.1(b), as noted by the 
MIC. NHTSA has corrected this inaccurate reference in the final 
regulatory text.

D. Peak Braking Coefficient

    The peak braking coefficient (PBC) is a measure of the coefficient 
of friction of the test surface and is an important parameter in 
evaluating the brake performance of a vehicle. PBC is effectively 
equivalent to the peak friction coefficient (PFC) as defined in FMVSS 
No. 121, Air brake systems, and FMVSS No. 135, Light vehicle brake 
systems. The GTR specifies test surface conditions, one of which is 
that the high-friction ``test surface has a nominal [PBC] of 0.9, 
unless otherwise specified.'' As explained in the NPRM, for reasons of 
objectivity, we specified in the proposed rule a PBC equal to 0.9 for 
the high-friction dry test surface used for the motorcycle brake system 
tests.
    FMVSS No. 122 currently specifies that the road tests be conducted 
on an 8-foot-wide level roadway having a skid number of 81. The skid 
number is also a measure of the coefficient of friction of the test 
surface and is derived by measuring the friction using a locked wheel, 
whereas the PBC is derived by measuring the peak surface friction 
before wheel lockup occurs. PBC is a more relevant surface friction 
measurement for non-locked wheel tests, such as those included in FMVSS 
No. 122 and in the GTR. Other Federal motor vehicle safety standards 
for braking systems, FMVSS No. 121 and FMVSS No. 135, specify the road 
test surface using a PBC of 0.9 when measured using the American 
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E1136-93 (Reapproved 2003) 
standard reference test tire, in accordance with ASTM Method E1337-90 
(Reapproved 2002), at a speed of 40 mph without water delivery.
    As explained in the NPRM, the GTR defines the test surface using a 
PBC value instead of a skid number value since peak braking coefficient 
is a more representative measure of the type of braking tests performed 
in the requirements with a rolling tire. However, the decision was made 
to not specify the method used to measure the coefficient of friction 
but leave it to the national regulations to specify which of the above 
test methods should be used to measure PBC. In the U.S., the ASTM 
Method for measuring PBC to define surface friction has been included 
in Federal motor vehicle safety standards since the early-1990's and 
was also used by the U.S. automotive industry prior to that date. 
Accordingly, the agency proposed that the PBC of the test surface will 
be measured using the ASTM E1136-93 (Reapproved 2003) standard 
reference test tire, in accordance with ASTM Method E1337-90 
(Reapproved 2002). The GTR maintains an option for Contracting Parties 
to specify in their respective national regulations the value of PBC 
for the high-friction dry test surface used for the motorcycle brake 
system tests.
    PBC Measurement Methodology. Three commenters requested that NHTSA 
allow use of the test vehicle itself to define PBC as described in the 
GTR. Harley-Davidson requested that the agency reconsider our intent 
``to allow only ASTM [E1337-90] to determine road surface peak braking 
coefficient.'' \54\ Harley-Davidson stated that, although NHTSA has a 
history of using the ASTM method, the use of the test vehicle itself to 
determine wheel lock threshold, as allowed by UNECE Reg. No. 78, is a 
widely used procedure that is well understood within the motorcycle 
industry. Harley-Davidson commented that the ASTM method involves the 
use of additional test equipment, and adds further complexity and costs 
to the testing process, while NHTSA has acknowledged that the two 
methods yield comparable results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Harley-Davidson Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0012 
at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MIC commented that the intention of the GTR was for both the 
ASTM method and the alternative UNECE Reg. No. 78 method to be

[[Page 51659]]

available as test options.\55\ The MIC stated that the choice of method 
should be up to the manufacturer or other testing entity. The MIC also 
pointed out that in some circumstances, where length and width of the 
test course are limited, the ASTM E1337-90 method cannot be performed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ MIC Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0017.1 at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Honda expressed a more specific difficulty regarding the PBC 
measurement. Honda stated that it has utilized a test facility that 
cannot accommodate the ASTM E1337-90 procedure due to its relatively 
small size.\56\ Honda stated that it would have to move its manpower, 
vehicles, and testing equipment from its current on-site location to a 
much more distant one in order to accommodate the ASTM E1337-90 test 
procedure, and that having to do so would be very burdensome and 
expensive and could force product development delays. Additionally, 
Honda stated that moving testing to other Honda facilities would also 
cause schedule conflicts with testing of other on-road products, and 
may ultimately force Honda to build additional testing facilities at 
great expense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Honda Comment, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0018.1 at 2. 
Honda gave no further details, but we assume the inability of its 
test facility to accommodate the ASTM E1337-90 method has to do with 
the additional track length needed to get a skid trailer up to the 
test speed of 64 km/h and maintain that speed while braking the 
trailer's test wheel, compared to the relatively shorter distance 
required to do the same from 60 km/h with a test motorcycle while 
braking it to a stop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: The GTR leaves to individual national legislation 
the methodology that is selected for measurement of test surface 
friction. The text of the GTR makes this clear in paragraph 4.1.1.3, 
Measurement of PBC, which states that ``PBC is measured as specified in 
national or regional legislation using either: (a) [the ASTM E1337-90 
test method]; or (b) [the UNECE Reg. No. 78 method].'' \57\ Similarly, 
the formal statement of technical rationale and justification that 
precedes the GTR regulatory text states that the ``Contracting Parties 
[] agreed to list both methods in the regulatory text of the GTR, but 
decided to leave it to the national regulations to specify which of the 
above test methods should be used to measure the PBC.'' \58\ The use of 
the phrase ``which of the above test methods'' in this preamble 
statement makes clear that the Contracting Parties intended that 
national regulations adopting the GTR could adopt either of the listed 
test methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See Global Technical Regulation No. 3, Amendment 1, 
Motorcycle Brake Systems, U.N. Doc. ECE/TRANS/180/Add.3/Amend.1 
(July 31, 2008); Global Technical Regulation No. 3, Motorcycle Brake 
Systems, U.N. Doc. ECE/TRANS/180/Add.3 (Dec. 21, 2006), available at 
http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29registry/gtr3.html (last accessed April 27, 2010).
    \58\ Global Technical Regulation No. 3, Motorcycle Brake 
Systems, U.N. Doc. ECE/TRANS/180/Add.3 at 11 (Dec. 21, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, consistent with the GTR, this final rule specifies that 
measurement of the PBC is conducted in accordance with the ASTM E1337-
90 test method, or the first option in paragraph 4.1.1.3 of the GTR, as 
proposed.\59\ NHTSA's selection of the ASTM method represents what we 
consider to be a well-defined baseline that is appropriate for use in a 
safety standard. As explained above, other FMVSSs specify the ASTM 
E1337-90 test method to measure peak braking coefficient. Thus, NHTSA 
is immediately prepared to start testing in accordance with this test 
method, as opposed to the UNECE Reg. No. 78 test method. While there 
may, as a couple commenters noted, be no quantifiable safety benefit to 
choosing one test method over the other, there is certainly an 
enforcement concern for the agency, both because NHTSA does not have as 
much experience conducting PBC measurements for compliance tests using 
the UNECE Reg. No. 78 test method, and because proving noncompliance is 
substantially more complicated when the agency provides manufacturers 
with multiple options for compliance, as explained in section III.B 
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See proposed paragraph S6.1.1.3. FMVSS No. 122 NPRM, 73 FR 
at 54039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above in section III.B, Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards (FMVSSs) do not require manufacturers to test every motor 
vehicle or piece of motor vehicle equipment to the specifications in 
each safety standard. The FMVSSs set performance standards that motor 
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must meet when tested by the 
agency in accordance with the test procedures specified in the FMVSS 
associated with that performance requirement. Neither the National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act \60\ (nor other statutes NHTSA 
administers) nor NHTSA standards and regulations require that a 
manufacturer base its certifications on any particular tests, any 
number of specified tests or, for that matter, any tests at all. A 
manufacturer is required to exercise due care in certifying its motor 
vehicles. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to determine 
initially what test results, computer simulations, engineering 
analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that 
its vehicles comply with applicable Federal safety standards. Thus, 
manufacturers and test laboratories can use the UNECE Reg. No. 78 
method, or another method, for their own certification purposes as long 
as they can reasonably correlate test results using their chosen method 
with those using the FMVSS procedure and show that their certification 
tests provide a sound basis for compliance with the safety standard. 
The GTR preamble explains that despite the differences in methodology, 
``the ABS validation research program demonstrated that, when properly 
conducted, both methods yield comparable results for evaluating the 
test surface.'' \61\ Thus, it would appear that this approach will not 
impose a great financial burden on manufacturers. This approach has a 
longstanding history in brake system compliance tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 
Public Law 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 (1966) (now codified, as amended, at 
49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.).
    \61\ Global Technical Regulation No. 3, Motorcycle Brake 
Systems, U.N. Doc. ECE/TRANS/180/Add.3 at 11 (Dec. 21, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a practical matter, we note that in the UNECE Reg. No. 78 
method, the surface friction coefficient is determined by measuring the 
maximum braking rate with ABS disabled, for the front wheel and rear 
wheel brakes applied simultaneously, and with constant brake forces 
applied throughout the tests. This is not practicable for some ABS-
equipped motorcycles where ABS cannot be disabled. This is a particular 
concern since FMVSS No. 122, under the current amendment, for the first 
time will include procedures specifically for ABS. For these reasons, 
this final rule amends FMVSS No. 122 so that it will specify that when 
NHTSA tests for the performance criteria listed in the standard, PBC 
will be measured using the ASTM procedure.
    Nominal PBC versus PBC. Harley-Davidson urged NHTSA to reconsider 
the language the agency chose for specifying the PBC measure of the 
high-friction test surface, stating that the proposed language appears 
to require an exact PBC measure of 0.9, rather than accepting a 
``nominal PBC'' of 0.9.\62\ Harley-Davidson commented that it did not 
understand NHTSA's intent in removing the term ``nominal'' and NHTSA's 
reference to ``objectivity,'' other than as a desire for the agency to 
maintain consistency with other NHTSA safety standards. Harley-Davidson 
went on to state:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Harley-Davidson Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0012 
at 2-3.


[[Page 51660]]


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

    Measures of PBC are meant to be a statement of a current 
condition on a particular section of road. They are reported as an 
average of measures and, in the case of ASTM E1337-90, as an average 
of averages. Such a report is in the nature of ``nominal'' as we 
understand the term. We are uncertain whether NHTSA is effectively 
proposing to require vehicle manufacturers to expend extra resources 
to develop the entire test surface to attain an actual PBC of 0.9 
rather than accepting a report of the nominal condition of the same 
test surface.

    Harley-Davidson also quoted a discussion that was included in the 
technical rationale accompanying the GTR, at section 5.2.7.1, which 
lays out in detail the reasons why the GTR specifies a nominal PBC of 
0.9 rather than an exact value.
    Honda also commented on this issue. Honda stated that ``[i]t is 
difficult to maintain the PBC equal to exactly 0.9, and the parties 
which contributed to the GTR discussed this issue many times, agreeing 
to allow for slight variances.'' \63\ Honda stated that referring to an 
exact PBC value would result in an unnecessary testing burden for which 
there will be no safety benefit. Honda suggested that, should NHTSA 
deem it necessary to specify a tolerance to improve objectivity, such a 
tolerance should be included in the FMVSS No. 122 Test Procedure.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Honda Comment, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0018.1 at 2.
    \64\ For each FMVSS, NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance 
(OVSC) publishes detailed Laboratory Test Procedures for the purpose 
of providing guidelines for obtaining data in OVSC compliance 
testing programs and a uniform data recording format for NHTSA 
contractor laboratories. See http://www.nhtsa.gov/Vehicle+Safety/Test+Procedures (last accessed April 29, 2010). In the near future, 
NHTSA will likely revise the FMVSS No. 122 Test Procedure in 
accordance with this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MIC comment raised similar concerns, saying that testing costs 
will go up rather than be decreased, as described as a goal of the 
proposal, if the required PBC is set at exactly 0.9.\65\ The MIC 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ MIC Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0017.1 at 1-2.

    We agree that objectivity is desirable if the inclusion of an 
absolute is useful. However, in this application we do not believe 
it is either useful or desirable. It's difficult to set the PBC 
equal to 0.9 and this is recognized in the GTR that describes the 
attributes of the high-friction brake surface as having ``a nominal 
peak braking coefficient (PBC) of 0.9.'' We are not suggesting a 
specific tolerance, but believe nominal, based on best engineering 
practices, is essential to satisfactorily perform the test or 
achieve repeatability and should not have been deleted from the GTR 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
language.

    Agency Response: Inclusion of the ``nominal'' descriptor in 
specifying the PBC of the test surface is unacceptable from a 
compliance standpoint because it represents an unstated range of 
values. Specifying ``nominal PBC'' fails to limit the friction 
coefficient in an objective or useful way. Under the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, FMVSSs prescribed by NHTSA must be 
``stated in objective terms.'' \66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). See Chrysler Corp. v. NHTSA, 472 F.2d 
659, 675 (6th Cir. 1972) (discussing Congressional intent and 
explaining that ``objective criteria are absolutely necessary so 
that the question of whether there is compliance with the standard 
can be answered by objective measurement and without recourse to any 
subjective determination'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency's intent is not to require that high-friction brake 
tests be conducted only on surfaces with a PBC of exactly 0.9. Rather, 
the intent is to set a target PBC that acts as a reference point. In 
this way, those who are involved with brake system development, such as 
motorcycle manufacturers, can use test surfaces with any PBC below 0.9 
in order to ensure compliance at least at the 0.9 level.\67\ On the 
other hand, NHTSA, and laboratories conducting compliance tests, would 
use surfaces having a PBC of 0.9 or somewhat greater to allow a 
reasonable margin for friction variations and other test surface 
variables. As such, manufacturers are provided notice regarding what is 
required under the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Surfaces with lower coefficients of friction are more 
slippery than surfaces with higher friction coefficients, and thus 
provide lower levels of braking force and poorer directional 
stability and control during braking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Keeping in mind that FMVSS are established to set minimum 
performance requirements, manufacturers presumably would want to design 
to a level that exceeds the minimum.\68\ We believe specifying a PBC of 
0.9 without further qualification is the best way to identify exactly 
what the safety standard requires and to eliminate the need for 
interpretation as to what is expected for compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8) (defining ``motor vehicle safety 
standard'' as a ``minimum standard for motor vehicle or motor 
vehicle equipment performance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This approach of specifying an unqualified PBC is consistent with 
how surface peak friction coefficients are specified in FMVSS No. 121, 
Air Brake Systems,\69\ FMVSS No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems,\70\ 
and in FMVSS No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems.\71\ FMVSS 
No. 126 mandates Electronic Stability Control (ESC) systems on light 
vehicles, and establishes test procedures to ensure that ESC systems 
meet minimum requirements. In the rulemaking that established FMVSS No. 
126, NHTSA originally proposed a tolerance around the surface PBC 
specification, but ultimately specified simply a PBC of 0.9 for the 
test surface in the final rule.\72\ The agency explained that, although 
the proposed tolerance was an attempt to increase objectivity, such a 
tolerance created the possibility of compliance tests for FMVSS No. 126 
being performed on lower friction coefficient surfaces than those for 
other braking standards, which is not the intention. NHTSA explained 
that while it is unlikely that any facility has a surface with exactly 
that friction coefficient, compliance testing for other braking 
standards is performed on a surface with a PBC/PFC slightly higher than 
the specification, i.e., slightly less-slippery than the surface 
required, which creates a margin for clear enforcement. Here, as in the 
ESC final rule, we will continue to use consistent compliance test 
conventions across all FMVSSs, and specify an unqualified surface PBC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See 49 CFR 571.121, S5.3.1.1, S5.3.6.1, S6.1.7.
    \70\ See 49 CFR 571.135, S6.2.1.
    \71\ See 49 CFR 571.126, S6.2.2.
    \72\ Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Electronic 
Stability Control Systems, Controls and Displays; Final Rule, 72 FR 
17236, 17267-17268 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Test Sequence

    The NPRM proposed a specific testing order to eliminate any 
potential effect of the test sequence on braking performance and to 
harmonize with the GTR. The proposed sequence was selected based on 
increasing severity of the test on the motorcycle and its brake 
components, in order to preserve the condition of the brakes.
    The current FMVSS No. 122 specifies a particular sequence in which 
tests should be conducted, ending with the wet brake test. The fade 
test would have the greatest effect on the condition of the motorcycle 
brakes, which could affect brake performance in subsequent tests. For 
this reason, current FMVSS No. 122 specifies that a re-burnishing be 
conducted after the fade test, to refresh the brake components. In 
order to eliminate the need for re-burnishing, the GTR specifies that 
the fade test be the last of the motorcycle brake system performance 
tests.
    The ABS test would be the next most severe test, which will result 
in braking at or near the limits of traction. Thus, the GTR specifies 
that the ABS test would precede the fade test, for motorcycles equipped 
with ABS. The remaining tests are not as severe on the brake system and 
tires, therefore the GTR sequenced them according to increasing test 
speed for the dry stop

[[Page 51661]]

performance tests, followed by the wet brake performance test. 
Consistent with the GTR, we proposed to specify the test sequence using 
a table in the regulation. The proposed test sequence table was 
identical to Table 1 here.

                     Table 1--Proposed Test Sequence
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Test order                            Paragraph
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Dry stop--single brake control actuated................         S6.3
2. Dry stop--all service brake controls actuated..........         S6.4
3. High speed.............................................         S6.5
4. Wet brake..............................................         S6.6
5. Heat fade*.............................................         S6.7
6. If fitted:
  6.1. Parking brake system...............................         S6.8
  6.2. ABS................................................         S6.9
  6.3. Partial failure, for split service brake systems...         S6.10
  6.4. Power-assisted braking system failure..............         S6.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Heat fade is always the last test to be carried out.

    Harley-Davidson and the MIC both stated that the test sequence in 
Table 1 would be clearer if the procedures listed as items No. 5 and 
No. 6 were reversed.\73\ They suggested that the heat fade test, listed 
as No. 5 in Table 1, should be listed last since it is always the last 
test in the sequence, even if procedures under No. 6 are required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ MIC Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0017.1 at 3; 
Harley-Davidson Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0012 at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: We note that the order in which the test 
procedures were listed in Table 1 corresponded to the paragraph number 
sequence of the regulatory text of the proposed safety standard. Also, 
the procedures listed under No. 6 in Table 1 are required only for 
certain equipment which may not be fitted to the test motorcycle, e.g., 
a parking brake or power-assisted brakes. Nevertheless, we agree it is 
clearer if the procedures appear in Table 1 in the same order in which 
they are to be performed. Therefore, we are changing the table in the 
regulatory text as requested, by putting the Heat Fade test at the end 
of the list. Table 2 illustrates how the table appears in the final 
regulatory text, which is referred to in paragraph S6.1.7, Test 
Sequence.

        Table 2--Test Sequence Specified in Final Regulatory Text
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Test order                            Paragraph
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Dry stop--single brake control actuated................         S6.3
2. Dry stop--all service brake controls actuated..........         S6.4
3. High speed.............................................         S6.5
4. Wet brake..............................................         S6.6
5. If fitted:
  5.1. Parking brake system...............................         S6.8
  5.2. ABS................................................         S6.9
  5.3. Partial failure, for split service brake systems...         S6.10
  5.4. Power-assisted braking system failure..............         S6.11
6. Heat fade..............................................         S6.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Brake Application Force Measurement

    Controls for the application of the brakes can include hand and 
foot actuated control levers. The various national standards and 
regulations have slightly different brake control input force limits, 
and in the case of a hand actuated control lever, there is also a 
discrepancy as to the location of application of the input force. One 
consistent element is the location and direction of application of the 
input force to the foot actuated lever (i.e., pedal). Consistent with 
the GTR, the NPRM proposed input forces for each test in accordance 
with the national regulation on which the individual test is based, to 
minimize confusion. The respective input forces are noted in Table 3. A 
discussion on brake control actuation force specifications for 
evaluating motorcycles equipped with ABS is provided below in paragraph 
IV.G.

  Table 3--Input Forces on Hand and Foot Actuated Brake Control Levers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Foot control, FP     Hand control, FL
          Regulation                    (N)                  (N)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMVSS No. 122.................  25 < FP < 400        10 < FL < 245
UNECE Regulation No. 78/JSS 12- FP < 350             FL < 200
 61.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the NPRM, with respect to the location of the input 
force on the hand-controlled lever, in developing the GTR, there was 
agreement that none of the three national regulations is clear enough 
with respect to measuring the location of the input force on the hand-
controlled lever. In an effort to define a common practice, the GTR 
includes a revised description for the location of the input force on 
the control lever and its direction of application, based on ISO 
8710:1995, Motorcycles--Brakes and braking devices--tests and 
measurement methods. Consistent with the GTR, the NPRM proposed the 
GTR's harmonized specification of input force in proposed paragraph 
S6.2.3. NHTSA is adopting this specification as proposed since no 
commenter mentioned this proposed requirement.
    Finally, for those motorcycles that use hydraulic fluid for brake 
force transmission, the GTR stipulates that the master cylinder shall 
have a sealed, covered, separate reservoir for each brake system. This 
includes one or more separate reservoirs located within the same 
container, such as commonly found on passenger cars. Such containers 
may only have one sealed, covered filling cap. The proposed rule 
incorporated these hydraulic service brake system requirements in 
paragraph S5.1.9. Since no commenter mentioned this proposed regulatory 
text, we are adopting these provisions as proposed.

G. Brake Temperature Measurement

    Brake test requirements typically specify that initial brake 
temperature (IBT) be measured at the start of each braking performance 
run to enhance test repeatability. The two measurement methods that are 
generally used in brake standards and regulations worldwide include (1) 
the use of plug-type thermocouples, and (2) the use of rubbing-type 
thermocouples. We proposed to retain the plug-type thermocouples brake 
temperature measurement method in FMVSS No. 122.
    The two methods of measuring the IBT were included in the GTR and 
each Contracting Party could specify which temperature measurement 
would be accepted in its national regulation.

[[Page 51662]]

FMVSS No. 122, as well as all the other brake standards in the Federal 
motor vehicle safety standards, currently specifies the plug-type 
thermocouple for measuring the initial brake temperature. NHTSA does 
not have experience using the rubbing-type thermocouple either in brake 
research or compliance testing. Given the limitations of the rubbing-
type thermocouple described in the NPRM, we continue to believe that 
the plug-type thermocouple would be the more effective option for 
measuring IBT in the updated FMVSS No. 122. We did not receive any 
comment on this aspect of the proposal. Therefore, as in current FMVSS 
No. 122 and as in the proposed rule, updated FMVSS No. 122 will specify 
that initial brake temperature is measured by plug-type thermocouples.
    With respect to the actual brake temperature values specified for 
testing purposes, consistent with the GTR, the NPRM proposed that FMVSS 
No. 122 specify as a test condition an IBT between 55 [deg]C and 100 
[deg]C in order to encompass all brake systems. Since no commenter 
addressed this proposed test condition, today's final rule continues to 
specify this IBT range as a test condition for each test procedure for 
the reasons explained in the NPRM.

H. Burnishing Procedure

    The current FMVSS No. 122 includes a burnishing procedure. In order 
to harmonize with the GTR, we proposed a slight variation of the 
current procedure, to include some aspects of procedures currently used 
by motorcycle manufacturers in preparation for UNECE Regulation No. 78/
JSS 12-61 type approval testing.
    The burnishing procedure serves as a conditioning of the foundation 
brake components to permit the brake system to achieve its full 
capability. Burnishing typically matches the friction components to 
one-another and results in more stable and repeatable stops during 
testing. All Federal motor vehicle safety standards for brake systems 
(FMVSS Nos. 105, 121, 122, and 135) currently include a burnishing 
procedure. The burnishing procedure of current FMVSS No. 122 specifies 
200 stops with both brakes applied simultaneously, decelerating from a 
speed of 30 mph at 12 fps\2\ with an IBT between 55 [deg]C and 65 
[deg]C (130 [deg]F and 150 [deg]F).
    As explained in the NPRM, the burnishing procedure in the GTR is 
based on FMVSS No. 122, but also includes some aspects of procedures 
currently used by motorcycle manufacturers in preparation for UNECE 
Regulation No. 78/JSS 12-61 type approval testing. For example, the GTR 
specifies burnishing the brakes separately since this would result in a 
more complete burnish for both front and rear brakes, as compared with 
the current FMVSS No. 122 method of using both brakes simultaneously. 
Hence, consistent with the GTR, the proposed rule specified that each 
brake be burnished for 100 decelerations.
    Harley-Davidson commented that it may not be possible or necessary 
in the case of combined or split-service brake systems to actuate each 
brake separately for the burnishing procedure of the proposed rule.\74\ 
Harley-Davidson, thus, recommended appending language such as ``unless 
a split service or combined brake system is present'' to the 
S6.2.5.2(c) burnishing test procedure specification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Harley-Davidson Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0012 
at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: The test condition specification in proposed 
paragraph S6.2.5.2(c) (Brake application) stated, ``Each service brake 
system control actuated separately.'' It did not say that the front and 
rear brakes have to be applied separately. The proposed language 
accurately conveys the intent of the requirement, which is that each 
control, if there is more than one control on the motorcycle, be 
actuated independently of any other brake controls.
    The language suggested by Harley-Davidson would not account for 
combined brake systems having both hand lever and foot pedal controls. 
Under the procedure in S6.2.5.2(c), such a system would be burnished by 
applying the front lever of the CBS-equipped system (which could apply 
both front and rear brakes to varying degrees, depending on the CBS 
design) in a series of 100 stops, and then the burnishing would be 
repeated using the rear lever or pedal of the CBS-equipped system 
(which also could apply both front and rear brakes to varying degrees, 
depending on the CBS design) in a second series of 100 stops.
    The intent of the contracting parties in developing separate 
burnish for front and rear brakes was to ensure a more complete burnish 
compared with the current FMVSS No. 122 where a 200-stop burnish 
procedure is required with simultaneous application of both brake 
controls. The current burnish procedure results in more variability of 
the brake burnish since the test rider determines the mix of front to 
rear brake forces used to attain the specified deceleration level 
during the burnish stops. The GTR burnish procedure ensures a more 
complete burnish for both brakes since each brake control is used 
separately. We are aware that for CBS-equipped motorcycles, the burnish 
procedure may provide a slightly higher level of burnish since a 
portion of the front and rear foundation brakes may be activated by 
both the hand lever and the foot pedal.
    NHTSA believes that the language of the proposed procedure in 
S6.2.5.2(c) is consistent with our intent, and therefore, we elect not 
to modify the proposal as requested in this comment. Since no commenter 
mentioned any other aspect of the proposed burnishing procedure, we are 
adopting the burnishing procedure as proposed, for the reasons 
explained here and in the NPRM.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See FMVSS No. 122 NPRM, 73 FR at 54026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Notice of Wear

    The NPRM proposed the GTR requirement that ``friction material 
thickness shall be visible without disassembly, or where the friction 
material is not visible, wear shall be assessed by means of a device 
designed for that purpose.'' \76\ Current FMVSS No. 122 requires that 
the ``brake system [ ] be installed so that the lining thickness of 
drum brake shoes may be visually inspected, either directly or by use 
of a mirror without removing the drums, and so that disc brake friction 
lining thickness may be visually inspected without removing the pads.'' 
\77\ Allowing wear of friction material thickness to be assessed either 
visually or by means of a device increases design freedom while serving 
the same purpose of indicating friction material wear, without the need 
for disassembly. We did not receive comment on this aspect of the 
proposal and, therefore, are adopting this requirement as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See FMVSS No. 122 NPRM, 73 FR at 54038.
    \77\ 49 CFR 571.122, S5.1.5, Other requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Specific Performance Test Improvements to FMVSS No. 122

    Here, we discuss the proposed specific test procedures and 
performance criteria improvements to FMVSS No. 122, any comments 
received on these proposed improvements, and the agency's response to 
those comments. Where no comments were received on a proposed test 
procedure or performance criteria, or a certain aspect of those 
requirements, NHTSA has generally adopted those proposals in accordance 
with the rationale detailed in the NPRM. Although this final rule 
states as such for each amendment, we generally will not repeat the 
rationale and justification for aspects of the proposal that did not 
receive comment. We refer readers to

[[Page 51663]]

the NPRM for the basis for those amendments.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See FMVSS No. 122 NPRM, 73 FR at 54023-54027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Dry Stop Test--Single Brake Control Actuated

    This final rule is adopting the proposed provision for a dry stop 
test with single brake control that is based on UNECE Regulation No. 78 
and JSS 12-61 tests.\79\ Currently, FMVSS No. 122 does not have a 
requirement that tests each brake system separately except for tests 
with the brakes in a pre-burnished condition. All other tests with the 
brake system fully operational require front and rear brake application 
simultaneously. In the main FMVSS No. 122 dry stop test with both brake 
controls actuated simultaneously, the test rider judges how to 
apportion the actuation force to the front and rear brakes. This may 
give less repeatable test results or allow the test rider to compensate 
for a ``weak'' brake. As such, an additional test specifying that each 
brake be tested individually will improve FMVSS No. 122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See FMVSS No. 122 NPRM, 73 FR at 54027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of a dry stop test requirement with the separate 
actuation of each brake control is to ensure a minimum level of 
motorcycle braking performance on a dry road surface for each 
independent brake system. Current FMVSS No. 122 performance 
requirements are quite different as they specify motorcycles be tested 
in what is effectively the lightly-loaded condition,\80\ and with all 
brake controls actuated simultaneously. The exception is the pre-
burnish test requirements, which specify that each independently 
actuated service brake system must be capable of stopping the 
motorcycle (in effectively the lightly-loaded condition) within 
specified stopping distances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ As mentioned above, current FMVSS No. 122 specifies that 
performance requirements must be met when the ``motorcycle weight is 
unloaded vehicle weight plus 200 pounds.'' 49 CFR 571.122, S6.1. 
``Unloaded vehicle weight'' is defined under 49 CFR 571.3(b) to mean 
``the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids 
necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, 
occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the 
vehicle when they are not in use.'' This current FMVSS No. 122 test 
mass condition is effectively equivalent to the mass condition 
``lightly loaded'' in the proposed rule. Lightly loaded means the 
sum of unladen vehicle mass (mass of the vehicle with bodywork and 
all factory fitted equipment, and fuel tanks filled to at least 90 
percent) and driver mass ``plus 15 kg for test equipment, or the 
laden condition, whichever is less.'' 73 FR 54020, 54037 (proposed 
FMVSS No. 122 S4, Definitions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MIC and Harley-Davidson each pointed out in their comments that 
the proposed specification of brake actuation force for the single 
brake control actuated dry stop test in the NPRM regulatory text 
appeared to be missing a force value for motorcycle category 3-4 
(proposed paragraph S6.3.2(d)(2)(ii)).\81\ They pointed out that this 
test procedure specification should read ``<= 500 N for motorcycle 
category 3-4'' instead of ``<= for motorcycle category 3-4.'' No other 
commenter mentioned this proposed test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ MIC Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0017.1 at 3; 
Harley-Davidson Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0012 at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: We agree with the commenters that the force value 
was missing from the paragraph S6.3.2(d)(2)(ii) test procedure 
specification. Consistent with the GTR, we have revised this paragraph 
to specify a foot control brake actuation force of 500 N for category 
3-4 motorcycles. Since no commenter disagreed with the adoption of the 
proposed single brake control-actuated dry stop test, this final rule 
includes the dry stop test with single brake control based on UNECE 
Regulation No. 78/JSS 12-61 requirements, for the reasons explained in 
the NPRM. Unlike present UNECE/JSS standards, the requirement will 
specify only stopping distance as the measurement criterion and will 
not include MFDD as an optional criterion. When NHTSA conducts 
compliance testing, we will use stopping distance as the performance 
measure.

B. Dry Stop Test--All Service Brake Controls Actuated

    This final rule is also adopting the proposed provision to test the 
service brakes with both brake controls applied simultaneously, which 
is very similar to the current FMVSS No. 122 dry stop test with both 
brake controls applied simultaneously. The purpose of this test with 
all service brake controls actuated is to evaluate the full braking 
performance of motorcycles from a speed of 100 km/h with both front and 
rear brakes applied simultaneously. These test parameters are relevant 
since they represent the typical operating conditions of a motorcycle 
with a single rider traveling at highway speeds. In addition, testing 
in the lightly loaded condition with a full brake application helps to 
evaluate motorcycle stability during braking. Since we did not receive 
comments on this performance test, this final rule is adopting this 
test procedure and performance criteria as proposed, for the reasons 
explained in the NPRM.

C. High-Speed Test

    We are also adopting the proposed high-speed test, for the reasons 
largely explained in the NPRM. The purpose of the high-speed test is to 
evaluate the full braking performance of the motorcycle from a high 
speed and with both front and rear brakes applied simultaneously. The 
test is performed from a speed of 160 km/h or 0.8 of the vehicle's 
maximum speed (Vmax), whichever is less.
    Based on the NHTSA/Transport Canada Review of Motorcycle Brake 
Standards,\82\ it was determined during development of the GTR that 100 
mph (160 km/h) or 0.8 Vmax is adequate for a high speed effectiveness 
test since the benefits of testing from higher speeds do not warrant 
the potential hazard to which the test rider is exposed. Consistent 
with the GTR, the high-speed test procedure specified in this final 
rule limits the test speed to 160 km/h to address test facility 
limitations and safety concerns. As proposed, this final rule also 
specifies that the high speed test be conducted with the motorcycle 
engine connected, i.e., with the clutch engaged, and the transmission 
in the highest gear, which has the effect of enhancing motorcycle 
stability during braking from high speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ See Docket Nos. NHTSA-2008-0150-0005.1, NHTSA-2008-0150-
0006.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MIC noted a typographical error in the proposed regulatory text 
for the high-speed test in the specification for the initial brake 
temperature measurement.\83\ The MIC correctly noted that, consistent 
with the GTR, the initial brake temperature should be specified as ``>= 
55 [deg]C and <= 100 [deg]C.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ MIC Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0017.1 at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: We agree with the MIC that there was a 
typographical error in the proposed initial brake temperature test 
condition in the high-speed test procedure regulatory text, and that it 
should read as quoted above. The proposed regulatory text used two 
greater than or equal to symbols, instead of one greater than or equal 
to symbol, and one less than or equal to symbol. For the reasons 
explained above and in the NPRM, we are adopting the high-speed test 
procedure and performance criteria as proposed, with the correction 
noted above.

D. Wet Brake Test

    This final rule is also adopting the proposed wet brake test 
provision, which differs from the current FMVSS No. 122 wet brake test 
in that instead of submerging the brake system in water and then 
testing the brakes, the water is sprayed directly onto the brakes 
during the test. This procedure is based on UNECE Regulation No. 78 and 
JSS 12-61, which the reviews of motorcycle

[[Page 51664]]

brake standards found to be more stringent than current FMVSS No. 122. 
Accordingly, we believe that motorcycle brake safety will be enhanced 
as a result of this change in wet brake test procedure. The purpose of 
the wet brake test is to ensure a minimum level of braking performance 
when the motorcycle is ridden in heavy rain conditions.
    The wet brake performance evaluation specified in this final rule 
begins with a baseline test where each brake is tested separately and 
is required to decelerate a laden motorcycle at a specified rate, using 
the conditions of the dry stop test--single brake control actuated. For 
comparison, the same test is then repeated, but with a constant spray 
of water to wet the brakes. The difference in performance is evaluated 
immediately after the application of the respective brake, to ensure a 
minimum rise in deceleration performance with wet brakes. In addition, 
a drying brake can sometimes result in an excessively high pad friction 
leading to motorcycle instability and wheel lock; therefore a check for 
this ``over recovery'' is also included. Since we did not receive 
comments on this performance test, this final rule is adopting this 
test procedure and performance criteria as proposed, for the reasons 
explained here and in the NPRM.

E. Heat Fade Test

    We are also adopting the proposed heat fade test provision, which 
is based on the UNECE Regulation No. 78 and JSS 12-61 fade test. As 
explained in the NPRM, the results from both stringency studies 
indicated that this fade test is more stringent than the current FMVSS 
No. 122 fade test. The heat fade test ensures that a minimum level of 
braking performance is maintained after numerous consecutive brake 
applications. In terms of real world conditions, this could be akin to 
frequent braking while driving in a busy suburban area or on a downhill 
gradient.
    The adopted heat fade test requires that the brakes be tested 
separately, with the motorcycle loaded to its maximum mass capacity. 
The test begins with a baseline test with an IBT between 55 [deg]C and 
100 [deg]C, which provides the benchmark for performance comparison and 
evaluation of the heated brakes. This is followed by 10 consecutive 
fade stops with the purpose of building heat within the brakes. The 
final performance test occurs with one stop immediately following the 
10 fade stops. To evaluate brake fade performance, the procedure 
compares the stopping distance for the same brake pedal and lever 
actuation forces as used in the baseline test.
    Minor adjustments were made to the UNECE Regulation No. 78 and JSS 
12-61 fade test. The text for the performance criteria was revised to 
use the average brake control force from the baseline test, calculated 
from the measured values between 80 percent and 10 percent of the 
specified vehicle test speed. The brake heating procedure was also made 
more objective. UNECE Regulation No. 78 presently requires that the 
motorcycle decelerate to the lesser of 3 meters per second squared (m/s 
\2\) or the maximum achievable deceleration rate with that brake 
control. For the purposes of the GTR, the latter performance 
requirement is made more objective by specifying that, at a minimum, 
the motorcycle must meet the deceleration rate for the dry stop test--
single brake control actuated, as noted in Table 2 of the regulatory 
text. As noted above in section IIIB, this is different from MFDD.
    Since we did not receive comments on this performance test, this 
final rule is adopting the heat fade test procedure and performance 
criteria as proposed, for the reasons explained here and in the NPRM.

F. Parking Brake System Test

    This final rule is adopting the proposed parking brake test, which 
will improve upon the current FMVSS No. 122 parking brake system test 
by specifying a more stringent loading condition. The purpose of the 
parking brake system performance requirement is to ensure that 
motorcycles required to be equipped with parking brakes can remain 
stationary without rolling away when parked on an incline.
    Consistent with the GTR, the test adopted in this final rule 
specifies that the parking brake system be capable of holding the 
motorcycle stationary for five minutes when tested in the laden 
condition (i.e., the maximum weight limit specified by the 
manufacturer) on an 18 percent grade, in both the forward and reverse 
directions (to the limit of traction of the braked wheels). In 
addition, like current FMVSS No. 122, the amended test procedure 
requires that the parking brake system be designed to retain engagement 
solely by mechanical means.
    Honda noted that, in adopting section 4.8.3 of the GTR regulatory 
language on parking brakes, NHTSA's proposal parenthetically added ``to 
the limits of traction of the braked wheels'' to the performance 
requirements in paragraph S6.8.3 of the proposed FMVSS No. 122 
regulatory text.\84\ Honda suggested that this additional language 
would be more appropriately included in the parking brake test 
procedure, or section S6.8.2 of the regulatory text. The MIC made a 
similar comment.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Honda Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0018.1 at 2-3.
    \85\ MIC Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0017.1 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: We agree that the added text would be more 
appropriately included in S6.8.2 rather than paragraph S6.8.3, as in 
the proposal. The regulatory text of the final rule reflects this 
change with the insertion of a new subparagraph under S6.8.2 (test 
conditions and procedures for parking brake system test) which states: 
``The motorcycle must remain stationary to the limits of traction of 
the braked wheels.'' For the reasons explained above and in the NPRM, 
we are adopting the parking brake system test procedure and performance 
criteria as proposed, with the minor rearrangement of language noted 
here.

G. Antilock Brake System (ABS) Performance Test

    Today's final rule does not require ABS but does contain ABS 
minimum performance requirements for motorcycles that are voluntarily 
equipped with this type of brake system. The purpose of the specified 
ABS test procedures is to assess the stability and stopping performance 
of a motorcycle with the ABS functioning.
    These new tests, adopted from the GTR, include stopping distance 
performance requirements on high and low friction surfaces, wheel lock 
tests on high and low friction surfaces, and wheel lock tests for high 
to low friction and low to high friction surface transitions. In 
addition, the new performance requirements include an ABS failed 
systems performance test. Current FMVSS No. 122 does not include any 
ABS-specific performance requirements.
    In the NPRM, NHTSA explained that we believe the ABS definition 
developed for the GTR is not as comprehensive as NHTSA's ABS definition 
which appears in three other Federal motor vehicle safety standards: 
FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems; FMVSS No. 121, Air 
Brake Systems; and FMVSS No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems. The two 
definitions are presented below:
     GTR Definition: Antilock brake system or ABS means a 
system which senses wheel slip and automatically modulates the pressure 
producing the braking forces at the wheel(s) to limit the degree of 
wheel slip.

[[Page 51665]]

     The current FMVSS Definition: Antilock brake system or ABS 
means a portion of a service brake system that automatically controls 
the degree of rotational wheel slip during braking by:
    (1) Sensing the rate of angular rotation of the wheels;
    (2) Transmitting signals regarding the rate of wheel angular 
rotation to one or more controlling devices which interpret those 
signals and generate responsive controlling output signals; and
    (3) Transmitting those controlling signals to one or more 
modulators which adjust brake actuating forces in response to those 
signals.
    The NPRM explained that we believe both definitions can be 
interpreted to mean the same thing. The NPRM sought comment on the 
proposed GTR definition and on the ABS definition used in the other 
braking standards. Since we did not receive comment on the definition 
of ABS, we are adopting the GTR definition, as proposed. However, we 
continue to believe that this is consistent with other FMVSSs, as both 
definitions above can be interpreted to mean the same thing.
    During the development of the GTR, each of the ABS performance 
tests and their corresponding requirements was reviewed to assess their 
appropriateness for the proposed motorcycle brake system GTR.\86\ This 
analysis is discussed in the NPRM and will not be repeated here except 
to the extent that it relates to comments received on the proposed ABS 
test procedures and performance criteria. Commenters were generally 
supportive of the adoption of the proposed ABS test procedures. 
Therefore, with the exception of the minor changes discussed below, we 
are adopting the ABS test procedures and performance criteria for the 
reasons explained here and in the NPRM.\87\

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

    \86\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0009.1.
    \87\ See FMVSS No. 122 NPRM, 73 FR at 54030-54032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Low Friction Surface for ABS Testing
    The proposed ABS test procedures included a wheel lock check and 
stopping distance performance requirement on a low friction surface, 
and wheel lock checks on a high-to-low and low-to-high surface 
transitions.\88\ Harley-Davidson commented that the test tracks it 
utilizes to certify ABS systems rely upon water delivery to reduce the 
surface friction to the required level for the low friction surface 
tests.\89\ Harley-Davidson expressed concern that the proposed 
regulatory text stated in paragraph S6.1.1.3 that the ASTM procedure to 
measure PBC be conducted ``without water delivery.'' Harley-Davidson 
stated that modifications needed to create a dry low friction surface 
would be costly and requested that NHTSA permit use of a wet surface as 
an alternative means of achieving the low friction surface test 
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ See FMVSS No. 122 NPRM, 73 FR at 54042.
    \89\ Harley-Davidson Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0012 
at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: It was not our intention to prevent use of a 
wetted surface for the low friction portion of the ABS test sequence. 
Paragraph S6.1.1.3 describes how the PBC of a dry surface is measured 
using the ASTM procedure but did not consider the need for measuring a 
wetted surface. We have deleted the phrase ``without water delivery'' 
from the S6.1.1.3 test procedure to allow for the use of either wet or 
dry low friction surfaces. We note that the description of a low 
friction surface (S6.1.1.2) states that it must be a ``clean and level 
surface,'' which allows it to be wetted, as compared with the 
description of the high friction surface (S6.1.1.1) which must be a 
``clean, dry and level surface''.
2. Wheel Lock
    Harley-Davidson pointed out in its comments that various 
performance requirements in the proposed ABS tests section (S6.9) 
prohibit wheel lock, but paragraph S6.9.1(d) specifies that wheel lock 
is allowed ``as long as the stability of the vehicle is not affected to 
the extent that it requires the operator to release the control or 
causes the vehicle to pass outside the test lane.'' \90\ Harley-
Davidson commented that it is unclear if the same language permitting 
limited wheel lock in S6.9.1(d) is implied in the subsequent procedures 
where it is stated that wheel lock shall not occur. Harley-Davidson 
requested that, if section S6.9.1(d) is in fact intended to define the 
term ``wheel lock'' generally for the whole safety standard, then the 
``Wheel Lock'' definition in section S4 of the rule should be modified 
appropriately. The MIC also noted that the description of the term 
``wheel lock'' in S6.9.1(d) is confusing given its use in subsequent 
paragraphs of S6.9.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Harley-Davidson Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0012 
at 4.
    \91\ MIC Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0017.1 at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: The limitation on ``wheel lock'' given in 
paragraph S6.9.1(d) is meant to apply to all of the ABS test procedures 
of section S6.9. NHTSA's intention was to permit in each of the test 
procedures the small degree of wheel lock that is typical of ABS 
operation, but to prohibit any greater degree of wheel lock. As 
explained in the NPRM, ``the regulatory text includes that wheel lock 
is allowed as long as the stability of the motorcycle is not affected 
to the extent that it requires the operator to release the control or 
causes the motorcycle to pass outside the test lane.'' \92\ What NHTSA 
meant there was that in each of the S6.9 ABS test procedures (i.e., in 
S6.9.3, S6.9.4, S6.9.5, S6.9.6, and S6.9.7) where it specifies ``there 
shall be no wheel lock,'' the limited degree of wheel lock allowed for 
in S6.9.1(d) is permitted. To make this clearer, we have modified the 
appropriate text of each of those procedures as follows (added text is 
italicized): ``There shall be no wheel lock except as provided in 
section S6.9.1(d) and the vehicle wheels shall stay within the test 
lane.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ See FMVSS No. 122 NPRM, 73 FR at 54031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, we disagree with Harley-Davidson's suggestion that the 
definitional language associated with wheel lock in section S6.9.1(d) 
should be added to the general definition of wheel lock in section S4 
of FMVSS No. 122. The limited wheel lock allowed specifically in ABS 
tests is not allowable in other brake test procedures in the safety 
standard, particularly where a motorcycle is not equipped with ABS. 
Therefore, we are not amending the definition of the term ``Wheel 
Lock'' in section S4 of the regulatory text.
3. Tests With ABS Electrical Failure
    As noted above, the proposed ABS performance tests included a test 
procedure to measure performance in the event of ABS electrical 
failure. Harley-Davidson pointed out in its comments that proposed 
section S6.9.8, Stops with an ABS electrical failure, requires the same 
test procedure as section S6.3, Dry Stop Test--Single brake control 
actuated, in the test sequence laid out in the FMVSS No. 122 
proposal.\93\ Harley-Davidson stated that, for a motorcycle with 
optional ABS, a test conducted under section S6.3 on a non-ABS-equipped 
version of the motorcycle is equivalent to a test conducted under 
section S6.9.8 on the motorcycle's ABS-equipped counterpart. Harley-
Davidson requested that NHTSA permit the result of the S6.3 test be 
used for the S6.9.8 test, i.e., to allow non-ABS portions of the test 
sequence to be used to certify both non-

[[Page 51666]]

ABS and ABS versions of the same motorcycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Harley-Davidson Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0012 
at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: We are adopting the ABS electrical failure test 
procedure as proposed. The tests in S6.9.8 and S6.3 would be redundant 
only if ABS-equipped and non-ABS-equipped versions of a motorcycle were 
otherwise identical and, only if they have identical braking 
performance under ABS-disabled conditions. Although Harley-Davidson's 
products may fit this description, it is not necessarily true for all 
manufacturers. A manufacturer may decide at its own discretion to 
certify a motorcycle to section S6.9.8 based upon results of tests 
conducted under section S6.3, but we do not believe these circumstances 
are necessarily typical.
    Furthermore, there is the question of test sequencing. A 
manufacturer has to certify that an ABS-equipped motorcycle can meet 
S6.9.8 after undergoing all preceding tests, including S6.3, when 
conducted in the order specified in the standard. For these reasons, we 
elect not to make any changes to the rule in this regard.
4. Other ABS-Related Comments
    Statistical Study of ABS Effectiveness. The Insurance Institute for 
Highway Safety (IIHS) comment discussed its 2008 statistical study in 
which the IIHS estimated ABS effectiveness by analyzing motorcycle 
fatal crash data.\94\ By comparing fatal crash frequency of ABS-
equipped and non-ABS-equipped motorcycles, the IIHS concluded that ABS 
reduces fatal crash involvement significantly. IIHS commented that a 
related study by the Highway Loss Data Institute indicated that ABS 
also reduces collision losses significantly. The IIHS further stated 
that ``[t]he importance of equipping motorcycles with ABS increases as 
motorcycling continues to grow in popularity.'' The IIHS stated that it 
supports the proposed strengthening of FMVSS No. 122 and urged NHTSA to 
consider further changes to encourage or require ABS on all 
motorcycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Comments, Docket No. 
NHTSA-2008-0150-0015.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: NHTSA is well acquainted with the IIHS statistical 
study. NHTSA has not yet determined what action we might take in the 
area of advanced motorcycle braking. The agency may explore the 
possibility of mandating ABS on motorcycles as a requirement in FMVSS 
No. 122 as suggested by IIHS in a future rulemaking.
    SMO-based ABS. The comment of SMO Group, L.L.C. (SMO), described a 
patented type of anti-lock system called Sliding Mode Observer ABS.\95\ 
SMO stated that this type of ABS is licensed for non-commercial 
aircraft and uses the same hardware as current motorcycle ABS. SMO 
commented that the system can more accurately maintain wheel slip close 
to the optimal level by using sensing and control algorithms different 
from those of conventional ABS. The company stated that, in computer 
simulations of aircraft and rail applications, instead of the actual 
friction coefficient varying between  5% of the peak 
coefficient of friction, as with currently available ABS, the SMO-based 
system can keep within  0.5% of the peak level friction 
coefficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ SMO Group, L.L.C. Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-
0013.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: While we appreciate SMO's comment, the company 
provided few details about the Sliding Mode Observer system and did not 
include test data of any kind to substantiate their claims of improved 
ABS performance. Therefore, we have no basis for evaluating whether 
such a system improves significantly on current motorcycle ABS systems.
    Furthermore, SMO did not make any specific request relating to 
NHTSA's proposed rule, such as changes to the regulatory text. SMO 
generally did not comment on NHTSA's effort to harmonize with the GTR 
other than to say that it would like to discuss its patented braking 
technology with NHTSA. As such, we are not making any changes to the 
updated FMVSS No. 122 regulatory text in response to this comment.
    Regulatory Text Typographical Error. The MIC pointed out in its 
comments that there appeared to be some proposed regulatory text 
missing at paragraph S6.9.5.1(a), Test Surfaces.
    Agency Response: We agree with the MIC that there was an omission 
in that paragraph of proposed regulatory text. We have revised 
paragraph S6.9.5.1(a) to specify that the test surface condition should 
be the ``[h]igh friction or low friction surface, as applicable.''

H. Partial Failure Test--Split Service Brake System

    We are adopting the proposed partial failure test applicable to 
motorcycles equipped with split service brake systems, with the 
exception of the minor corrections explained below, for the reasons 
explained here and in the NPRM. The purpose of this test is to ensure 
that, in the event of a pressure component leakage failure in one of 
the hydraulic subsystems, a minimum level of braking performance is 
still available in the remaining hydraulic subsystem to allow the rider 
to bring the motorcycle to a stop. As explained in the NPRM, the 
proposed service brake system partial failure test was not 
substantially different from the current FMVSS No. 122 test. Its 
statement of applicability was modified to use the newly proposed 
motorcycle categories. Also, S5.1.10.1(a)(2) was written to require a 
warning lamp to be activated, without actuation of the brake control, 
when the brake fluid level in the master cylinder reservoir falls below 
the greater of two levels. However, the conjunction ``and'' rather than 
``or'' was incorrectly used in the proposed regulatory text between the 
two levels. This has been corrected.
    The MIC pointed out in its comments that one of the proposed 
performance requirements for this test, proposed paragraph S6.10.4(a), 
required the braking system to comply with the failure warning 
requirements ``set out in paragraph 3.1.11'' when the test was 
performed with one of the subsystems deactivated. The MIC noted that 
the reference to paragraph 3.1.11 was incorrect, and suggested instead 
that the regulatory text should have referred to paragraph S5.1.10.
    Agency Response: We agree that the reference to ``paragraph 
3.1.11'' in proposed S6.10.4(a) was inadvertently copied from the GTR 
regulatory text. The correct reference to the failure warning 
requirements in the FMVSS No. 122 regulatory text is S5.1.10.1, Split 
service brake system warning lamps, and we have amended the regulatory 
text in this final rule accordingly.

I. Power-Assisted Braking System Failure Test

    Since no commenter mentioned the proposed power-assisted braking 
system failure test, this final rule adopts the test as proposed, for 
the reasons explained in the NPRM. The new power-assisted braking 
system failure test does not require power-assisted braking systems but 
does contain performance requirements for when such brake systems fail, 
to ensure minimum brake system performance in motorcycles that are so 
equipped. The current FMVSS No. 122 does not have any performance 
requirements to test the failure of a power-assisted braking system 
because the application of power-assisted braking systems on 
motorcycles is relatively new. Certifying to the performance 
requirement is not required if the motorcycle is equipped with another 
separate service brake system that operates without power-assist.

[[Page 51667]]

V. Other Comments and Technical Amendments

A. Labeling Requirements

    The proposed regulatory text in the NPRM did not include a few 
labeling requirements that were in FMVSS No. 122, since the GTR did not 
cover labeling. Since we still believe these labeling requirements are 
useful, and did not intend to remove those labeling requirements in 
updating FMVSS No. 122, we are including them in the final rule. We 
believe this will not be burdensome for motorcycle manufacturers 
because they are already including these labels on the relevant pieces 
of motorcycle equipment.
    Currently, FMVSS No. 122 requires a brake fluid warning label to be 
provided on the brake fluid reservoir.\96\ FMVSS No. 122 also requires 
that a label be provided for the brake failure indicator lamp.\97\ 
These required labels identify important safety features and safety-
related information, and they have longstanding applicability in FMVSS 
No. 122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ 49 CFR 571.122, S5.1.2.2 (2009).
    \97\ 49 CFR 571.122, S5.1.3.1(d) (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the fluid reservoir label, we have inserted new language in the 
regulatory text under the general requirements section S5.1.9, 
Hydraulic Service Brake System. The new subsection, S5.1.9(d), closely 
reflects the requirements in section S5.1.2.2 of the existing FMVSS No. 
122 safety standard. This new subsection identifies the wording, 
location, and other characteristics of the warning statement. 
Specifically, it requires that the warning statement: (1) Have 
lettering at least 3/32 of an inch high; (2) that it be located on or 
within 4 inches of the filler cap so as to be visible by direct 
viewing; and (3) that it be permanently affixed and of a contrasting 
color, or else be either engraved or embossed.
    As for labeling of the failure indicator lamp, this lamp is 
required for split-service brake systems and ABS-equipped brake 
systems, as specified in section S5.1.10 of the updated FMVSS No. 122 
regulatory text. However, the label should be different for each of 
those types of brake systems. Consequently, the warning lamp label 
specifications for split service brake systems are listed separately 
from those for ABS-equipped systems.
    For split service systems, we have inserted new paragraph 
S5.1.10.1(c) which requires each indicator lamp to have the legend 
``Brake Failure'' on or adjacent to it in letters not less than 3/32 of 
an inch high that shall be legible to the driver in daylight when 
lighted. This is identical to the current FMVSS No. 122 failure 
indicator lamp label requirement in paragraph S5.1.3.1(d).
    Since the existing FMVSS No. 122 did not have ABS performance 
requirements, there were no existing labeling requirements for ABS 
failure in FMVSS No. 122. The GTR, and NPRM, did specify that all 
motorcycles equipped with ABS must also be fitted with a yellow warning 
lamp to activate whenever there is a malfunction that affects the 
generation or transmission of signals in the motorcycle's ABS system. 
However, consistent with other FMVSS addressing ABS system failure,\98\ 
and consistent with the FMVSS that governs and standardizes control, 
telltales, and indicators, FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays, 
motorcycle brake ABS system failure should be indicated with the words 
``Antilock'' or ``Anti-lock'' or ``ABS.'' \99\ For ABS-equipped 
systems, we have modified section S5.1.10.2 by breaking the existing 
proposed text of that section into two paragraphs, identified as 
``(a)'' and ``(b),'' and by adding the label requirement under new 
paragraph ``(c)'' which specifies: ``The indicator shall be labeled in 
letters at least 3/32 of an inch high with the words `Antilock' or 
`Anti-lock' or `ABS' in accordance with Table 1 of Standard No. 101 (49 
CFR 571.101).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ See, e.g., 49 CFR 571.121, S5.1.6.2 (2009).
    \99\ See, e.g., 49 CFR 571.101, Table 1 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Versions of ASTM Standards

    ASTM International commented that NHTSA's proposal makes reference 
to a version of an ASTM standard that is not the latest version.\100\ 
The proposal refers to version E1337-90(2002) of ASTM's ``Standard Test 
Method for Determining Longitudinal Peak Braking Coefficient of Paved 
Surfaces Using Standard Reference Test Tire.'' ASTM pointed out that 
there is a more recent version, ASTM E1337-90(2008). ASTM asked that 
references to ASTM standards be done in a way that does not cite any 
particular version, so that the latest version will always be 
applicable. Specifically, ASTM requested that NHTSA reference the 
``Standard Test Method for Determining Longitudinal Peak Braking 
Coefficient of Paved Surfaces Using Standard Reference Test Tire'' only 
as ``ASTM E1137.'' ASTM's comment also would apply to another standard, 
ASTM E1136, ``Standard Specification for A Radial Standard Reference 
Tire.'' The NPRM proposed to refer to the ASTM E1136-93(2003) version 
of that standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ ASTM International Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-
0011.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: We are unable to accede to ASTM's request. 
Incorporation of industry standards or other materials by reference 
into the Code of Federal Regulations can only be accomplished with the 
approval of the Director of the Office of the Federal Register, 
National Archives and Records Administration.\101\ The Office of the 
Federal Register requires regulatory text that incorporates industry 
standards or other materials by reference to identify the standard or 
material to be incorporated by title, date, edition, author, publisher, 
and identification number of the publication.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ Congress authorized incorporation by reference, only with 
the approval of the Director of the Federal Register, in the Freedom 
of Information Act to reduce the volume of material published in the 
Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations. 5 U.S.C. 552, as 
amended by Public Law 104-231, 100 Stat. 3048 (1996).
    \102\ National Archives and Records Administration, Office of 
the Federal Register, Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook, 
Sec.  6.4 (October 1998 Revision), available at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/write/resources.html (last 
accessed May 14, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, from a compliance standpoint, it is important to reference 
a specific version of an industry standard, such as an ASTM procedure, 
so that regulated entities are on notice regarding the version of the 
industry recommended practice to which they will be held accountable 
under a Federal safety standard. NHTSA cannot reference an industry 
standard in such a way that the underlying procedures in a Federal 
safety standard are subject to being changed unilaterally, and without 
notice, by an independent entity such as ASTM. Otherwise, the 
requirements of the FMVSS could be changed without NHTSA's or the 
public's knowledge or approval, and without the prerequisite 
administrative process including public notice and comment. We will, 
however, reference the 2008 version of ASTM E1136-93, as it is 
unchanged from the 2003 version.

C. Terminology

    The MIC commented that NHTSA should substitute the word used to 
reference a type or category of motorcycle, ``type,'' as it was used in 
S5.1, Brake System Requirements, with the word ``category.''\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ MIC Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0017.1 at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: Since the latter term is the one used in the 
definitions of the five different types of motorcycles in S4, 
Definitions, we agree with this change and have revised the regulatory 
text accordingly.

[[Page 51668]]

VI. Compliance Date

    The NPRM explained that NHTSA had tentatively determined that 
virtually all of the current motorcycle fleet would comply with the 
proposal, if made final. Therefore, we proposed to make the upgraded 
requirements mandatory at the beginning of the first September that is 
two full years after publication of a final rule. The NPRM proposed 
that optional early compliance would be permitted on and after 30 days 
after the date of publication of a final rule in the Federal Register.
    Two commenters, Harley-Davidson and the MIC, requested that 
additional lead time be allowed for phase-in of the amended FMVSS No. 
122 requirements as they apply to three-wheeled motorcycles of category 
3-5 \104\ as defined in both the GTR and the NPRM.\105\ They stated 
that the proposal contains new brake system requirements for this type 
of three-wheeler in that split-service or combined brakes will be 
required instead of merely allowed. They requested an additional year 
of lead time beyond the two-year minimum lead time of the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ Category 3-5 motorcycles are defined in S3 as motorcycles 
``manufactured with three wheels symmetrically arranged in relation 
to the longitudinal median plane with an engine cylinder capacity in 
the case of a thermic engine exceeding 50 cm\3\ or whatever the 
means of propulsion a maximum design speed exceeding 50 km/h.'' This 
category includes primarily ``trikes'' and excludes motorcycles with 
sidecars, which are category 3-4 motorcycles.
    \105\ MIC Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0017.1 at 2; 
Harley-Davidson Comments, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0012 at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency Response: We agree that some category 3-5 motorcycles 
potentially will need re-engineering of their brake systems and that 
additional lead time is appropriate. Therefore, for category 3-5 
motorcycles, the updated FMVSS No. 122 promulgated in today's final 
rule will be mandatory no later than the beginning of the first 
September that is three full years after publication of today's final 
rule. This will provide a total of at least three years of lead time 
for category 3-5 motorcycles. For all other motorcycle categories, 
compliance with the updated FMVSS No. 122 must occur no later than the 
beginning of the first September that is two full years after 
publication of today's final rule, as proposed in the NPRM.
    The precise compliance dates for each motorcycle category are set 
forth, as applicable, in Sec.  571.122, S3. Optional early compliance 
is permitted on and after 60 days after the date of publication of a 
final rule in the Federal Register. The optional early compliance date 
was changed from the 30 days proposed in the NPRM to coincide with the 
date on which the text of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended. 
To accommodate the extra year of lead time for category 3-5 motorcycles 
and the optional early compliance, we are retaining the text of current 
version of FMVSS No. 122 in a new Standard, FMVSS No. 122a. We are 
amending paragraph S3 of the redesignated FMVSS No. 122a to limit its 
applicability to motorcycles not certified to the new FMVSS No. 122.
    We are also including in this final rule a technical correction to 
49 CFR 571.5. When NHTSA published a final rule in January 2012 
consolidating all of the standards and practices that are incorporated 
by reference in the FMVSSs into Sec.  571.5, the agency inadvertently 
incorporated an incorrect version of ASTM E274-70, ``Skid Resistance of 
Paved Surfaces Using a Full-Scale Tire,'' into FMVSS Nos. 105 and 
122.\106\ The version that was incorporated by reference in January 
2012 was the original 1970 version of the standard, which is different 
from the version that had been previously incorporated by reference 
into FMVSS Nos. 105 and 122, which includes editorial changes made in 
July 1974. This final rule corrects this error, and incorporates the 
correct version of ASTM E274-70 into FMVSS No. 105 and the newly 
redesignated FMVSS No. 122a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ 77 FR 751 (Jan. 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Costs and Benefits

    Although this final rule adds and updates FMVSS No. 122 test 
procedures, we anticipate that virtually all motorcycles sold in the 
U.S. can meet the performance requirements in this final rule, and 
thus, the agency has not been able to quantify safety benefits from the 
proposal. However, NHTSA believes that the performance requirements 
promulgated in today's final rule will help ensure the safety of 
motorcycle brake systems and thus have a beneficial effect on safety. 
The final rule includes several tests that will update and enhance 
performance requirements--tests both at the fully loaded condition 
(``laden'') and lightly-loaded vehicle weight, which ensure adequate 
braking performance at the two extremes of the loading conditions; a 
wet brake test that is more representative of the manner in which 
brakes are wetted during real world riding in wet conditions; a variety 
of ABS performance tests, for motorcycles so equipped, to ensure 
adequate antilock performance during emergency braking or on slippery 
road conditions; and a new test in the event of a failure in the power-
assisted braking system, if a motorcycle is so equipped.
    Moreover, as mentioned above, motorcycle manufacturers and, 
ultimately, consumers both here and abroad can expect to achieve cost 
savings through the formal harmonization of differing sets of standards 
when the Contracting Parties to the 1998 Agreement implement the 
Motorcycle Brake Systems GTR. Harmonization enables motorcycle 
manufacturers to test their models to just one regulation/series of 
tests to sell globally.
    We believe that, although the final rule adds some new requirements 
to FMVSS No. 122 and replaces some test procedures and performance 
requirements with ones based on more stringent standards used in 
another national regulation, none of the new tests will result in 
measurable costs to motorcycle purchasers. The rule includes 
performance requirements that constitute the best practices from 
various standards and regulations. Some of the tests, such as the wet 
brake test, the ABS performance requirements, and the tests in the 
loaded condition, are an upgrade to the existing FMVSS No. 122. But 
current FMVSS No. 122 does not reflect the advancement of modern 
braking technologies, and almost all motorcycles sold in the U.S. can 
meet the performance requirements as proposed without any major design 
changes. The agency believes that motorcycles sold in the U.S. market 
can comply with the requirements of ECE Regulation No. 78 and JSS 12-61 
without any modifications, and that motorcycles sold in the European 
and Japanese markets can meet U.S. FMVSS No. 122. As a result, any 
costs for design changes by motorcycle manufacturers to comply with the 
final rule performance requirements are expected to be minimal and 
would be offset by the elimination of some test procedures previously 
in FMVSS No. 122. We expect that, for manufacturers who certify 
compliance by conducting NHTSA's test procedures, the changes in the 
compliance test procedures would result in a cost savings of less than 
one-tenth of a cent per motorcycle.
    No commenter addressed the agency's assessment of costs and 
benefits in the NPRM. However, we have considered Harley-Davidson's 
comment that some three-wheeled motorcycles would need to have their 
brake systems redesigned to meet the new brake system requirements for 
category 3-5 motorcycles. We agree that a limited number of motorcycles 
will need to be redesigned to comply with the upgraded FMVSS No. 122. 
We estimate that about

[[Page 51669]]

8,000 category 3-5 motorcycles will need to be equipped with a split 
service brake system, which includes a dual master cylinder. A 2004 
NHTSA report estimate the cost of upgrading to a dual master cylinder 
at a cost of $10.88 per motorcycle in 2002 dollars.\107\ Adjusting that 
cost for inflation results in a cost of $13.38 in 2011 dollars. We 
anticipate that, based on recent sales numbers of three-wheeled 
motorcycles, approximately 8,000 motorcycles would need to be equipped 
with a dual master cylinder. Thus, we believe that the total annual 
cost of the upgrade necessary to the limited number of three-wheeled 
motorcycles as a result of today's final rule is approximately 
$107,040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ Cost and Weight Added by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards for Model Years 1968-2001 in Passenger Cars and Light 
Trucks (NHTSA Report No. DOT HS 809 834), December 2004, p. 21-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Vehicle Safety Act

    Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101 
et seq.), the Secretary of Transportation is responsible for 
prescribing motor vehicle safety standards that are practicable, meet 
the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in objective terms. 
49 U.S.C. 30111(a). When prescribing such standards, the Secretary must 
consider all relevant, available motor vehicle safety information. 49 
U.S.C. 30111(b). The Secretary must also consider whether a proposed 
standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the type of 
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed and 
the extent to which the standard will further the statutory purpose of 
reducing traffic accidents and associated deaths. Id. Responsibility 
for promulgation of Federal motor vehicle safety standards was 
subsequently delegated to NHTSA. 49 U.S.C. 105 and 322; delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
    The agency carefully considered these statutory requirements in 
adopting these amendments to FMVSS No. 122. The amendments to FMVSS No. 
122 are practicable. This document does not adopt significant changes 
to the current performance requirements of FMVSS No. 122. Currently, we 
believe that essentially all motorcycle brakes will meet or exceed the 
performance criteria specified in the adopted test procedures. 
Additionally, the amendments will harmonize the U.S. requirements with 
the Motorcycle Brake Systems Global Technical Regulation.
    These amendments are appropriate for the vehicles subject to the 
performance requirements. Today's final rule continues to exclude 
motorcycles for which the requirements and test procedures are 
impractical or unnecessary (e.g., low-speed motorcycles, categories 3-1 
and 3-2, continue to be excluded from the heat fade test).
    Finally, the agency has determined that the amendments provide 
objective procedures for determining compliance. The test procedures 
have been evaluated by the agency, and we have determined that they 
help achieve repeatable and reproducible results. Further, we are 
adopting test procedures to provide improved objectivity to existing 
performance requirements.

B. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of 
Transportation's (DOT's) related policies and procedures. This 
rulemaking is not considered significant and was not reviewed by the 
Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. Given the minimal 
impacts of the proposed rule, we have not prepared a full regulatory 
evaluation in accordance with the Department's Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures.\108\ The factual basis supporting this finding is as 
follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ Department of Transportation, Adoption of Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures, 44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule amends test procedures and performance 
requirements, but would impose minimal additional costs on 
manufacturers. We believe virtually all motorcycles presently 
manufactured for the U.S. market can meet these new performance 
requirements. Thus, this final rule is not expected to require design 
changes to nearly all current motorcycles. As discussed in section VII 
above, a limited number of three-wheeled motorcycles would need design 
changes to include a dual master cylinder at a cost of $13.38 per 
motorcycle in 2011 dollars. Thus, the total cost of this rule on the 
motorcycle industry is expected to be approximately $107,040 per year.
    We have considered whether the new compliance tests NHTSA will 
conduct under this final rule will result in additional costs to 
certify motorcycles as compliant with these performance requirements. 
The number of tests in the new test procedure (66) is less than the 
number of tests in the existing FMVSS No. 122 test procedure (72), even 
though this final rule adds additional tests for motorcycles equipped 
with ABS. Not all motorcycles are equipped with ABS, and those 
motorcycles will be subjected to fewer tests as we harmonize our 
motorcycle braking standards with European and Japanese standards and 
delete unnecessary tests. For example, this final rule eliminates a 
reburnishing of the brakes in the existing FMVSS No. 122 test 
procedure. We have determined that, for manufacturers that certify 
compliance by conducting NHTSA's test procedures, this final rule would 
result in a net cost savings of less than one-tenth of a cent per 
motorcycle.
    NHTSA is not able to quantify direct safety benefits from this rule 
in terms of the number of injuries and fatalities prevented. However, 
this final rule adds braking tests for motorcycles with antilock 
brakes. NHTSA believes that those tests will help ensure the safety of 
motorcycle brake systems.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order 
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional 
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is 
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that 
the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement. The final 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.''
    NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: 
When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a 
State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue 
in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a 
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is 
identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any 
non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the 
same aspect of performance.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a 
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety 
standard

[[Page 51670]]

prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability 
at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e) Pursuant to this provision, State 
common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle manufacturers 
that might otherwise be preempted by the express preemption provision 
are generally preserved. However, the Supreme Court has recognized the 
possibility, in some instances, of implied preemption of such State 
common law tort causes of action by virtue of NHTSA's rules, even if 
not expressly preempted. This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt 
is dependent upon there being an actual conflict between an FMVSS and 
the higher standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle 
manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment 
against the manufacturer, notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance 
with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an 
FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action 
that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers 
will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict 
does exist--for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum 
and a maximum standard--the State common law tort cause of action is 
impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 
861 (2000).
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered 
whether this rule could or should preempt State common law causes of 
action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the 
preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that 
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
    To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language 
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's rule 
and finds that this rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a 
minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this rule 
preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard 
on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by today's rule. 
Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not 
conflict with the minimum standard announced here. Without any 
conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common 
law tort cause of action.

D. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rulemaking that: (1) Is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under 
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or 
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children.\109\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ Exec. Order No. 13045, 62 FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rulemaking is not subject to the Executive Order because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. It 
also does not involve decisions based on health risks that 
disproportionately affect children.

E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, 
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' 
requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure 
that the regulation: (1) Specifies in clear language the preemptive 
effect; (2) specifies in clear language the effect on existing Federal 
law or regulation, including all provisions repealed, circumscribed, 
displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear legal standard 
for affected conduct rather than a general standard, while promoting 
simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in clear language 
the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether administrative 
proceedings are to be required before parties may file suit in court; 
(6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7) addresses other 
important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship of 
regulations.\110\ This document is consistent with that requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ Exec. Order No. 12988, 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive 
effect of this proposed rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further 
that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for 
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they 
may file suit in court.

F. 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. The SBREFA amended 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require 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.
    We have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and certify that this 
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. The agency is not currently aware of any 
motorcycle manufacturer that is considered a small business. The brake 
systems installed on motorcycles are typically developed by one of the 
major brake component suppliers, which are independent companies. There 
are cases where the motorcycle manufacturer may perform some of the 
brake system design and development in-house, and have the system 
components manufactured by an outside supplier. NHTSA does not consider 
any of these businesses to be small business entities that would be 
significantly economically impacted by this rulemaking.

G. National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this proposed amendment 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.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless 
the collection displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
control number. The rule does not contain any new information 
collection requirements.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in 
regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with 
applicable

[[Page 51671]]

law or otherwise impractical.\111\ 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) and the American Society for Testing and 
Materials (ASTM). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through 
OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
Sec.  12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ASTM E1136-93, Standard Specification for a Radial Standard 
Reference Test Tire, and ASTM Method E1337-90, Standard Test Method for 
Determining Longitudinal Peak Braking Coefficient of Paved Surfaces 
Using a Standard Reference Test Tire, are incorporated by reference in 
the regulatory text. This is consistent with the NTTAA because these 
are industry voluntary consensus standards.

J. 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).\112\ 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.\113\ 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Sec.  202, 2 U.S.C. 
1532.
    \113\ 2 U.S.C. 1535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's final rule will not impose any unfunded mandates under the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This rulemaking does not meet the 
definition of a Federal mandate because it 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 rulemaking is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

K. 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.

L. Privacy Act

    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.\114\ You may also visit http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#privacyNotice (last accessed May 17, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ Privacy Act of 1974: Systems of Records, 65 FR 19476, 
19478 (Apr. 11, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as 
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


0
2. Amend Sec.  571.5 by revising paragraphs (d)(29), (32), and (33), 
redesignating paragraphs (i) through (l) as paragraphs (j) through (m), 
and adding new paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  571.5  Matter incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (29) ASTM E274-70, ``Standard Method of Test for Skid Resistance of 
Paved Surfaces Using a Full-Scale Tire,'' revised July 1974, into 
Sec. Sec.  571.105; 571.122a.
* * * * *
    (32) ASTM E1136-93 (Reapproved 2003), ``Standard Specification for 
a Radial Standard Reference Test Tire,'' approved March 15, 1993, into 
Sec. Sec.  571.105; 571.121; 571.122; 571.126; 571.135; 571.139; 
571.500.
    (33) ASTM E1337-90 (Reapproved 2008), ``Standard Test Method for 
Determining Longitudinal Peak Braking Coefficient of Paved Surfaces 
Using a Standard Reference Test Tire,'' approved June 1, 2008, into 
Sec. Sec.  571.105; 571.121; 571.122; 571.126; 571.135; 571.500.
* * * * *
    (i) International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 1, ch. de 
la Voie-Creuse, CP 56, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland. Telephone: +41 
22 749 01 11. Fax: +41 22 733 34 30. Web site: http://www.iso.org/.
    (1) ISO 7117:1995(E), ``Motorcycles--Measurement of maximum 
speed,'' Second edition, March 1, 1995, into Sec.  571.122.
    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *


Sec.  571.122  [Redesignated as Sec.  571.122a]

0
3. Redesignate Sec.  571.122 as Sec.  571.122a and revise paragraph S3 
to read as follows:


Sec.  571.122a  Standard No. 122a; Motorcycle brake systems.

* * * * *
    S3. Application. This standard applies to motorcycles. However, 
this standard does not apply to motorcycles certified to comply with 
Sec.  571.122.
* * * * *

0
4. Add new Sec.  571.122 to read as follows:


Sec.  571.122  Standard No. 122; Motorcycle brake systems.

    S1. Scope. This standard specifies requirements for motorcycle 
service brake systems and, where applicable, associated parking brake 
systems.
    S2. Purpose. The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe 
motorcycle braking performance under normal and emergency riding 
conditions.
    S3. Application. This standard applies to category 3-1 motorcycles, 
category 3-2 motorcycles, category 3-3 motorcycles, and category 3-4 
motorcycles manufactured on and after September 1, 2014. This standard 
applies to category 3-5 motorcycles manufactured on and after September 
1, 2015. At the manufacturer's option, any motorcycle manufactured on 
or after October 23, 2012 may comply with this standard.

[[Page 51672]]

    S4. Definitions.
    Antilock brake system or ABS means a system which senses wheel slip 
and automatically modulates the pressure producing the braking forces 
at the wheel(s) to limit the degree of wheel slip.
    Baseline test means a stop or a series of stops carried out in 
order to confirm the performance of the brake prior to subjecting it to 
a further test such as the heating procedure or wet brake stop.
    Brake means those parts of the brake system where the forces 
opposing the movement of the motorcycle are developed.
    Brake system means the combination of parts consisting of the 
control, the brake, and the components that provide the functional link 
between the control and the brake, but excluding the engine, whose 
function it is to progressively reduce the speed of a moving 
motorcycle, bring it to a halt, and keep it stationary when halted.
    Category 3-1 motorcycle means a two-wheeled motorcycle with an 
engine cylinder capacity in the case of a thermic engine not exceeding 
50 cubic centimeters (cm\3\) and whatever the means of propulsion a 
maximum design speed not exceeding 50 kilometers per hour (km/h).
    Category 3-2 motorcycle means a three-wheeled motorcycle of any 
wheel arrangement with an engine cylinder capacity in the case of a 
thermic engine not exceeding 50 cm\3\ and whatever the means of 
propulsion a maximum design speed not exceeding 50 km/h.
    Category 3-3 motorcycle means a two-wheeled motorcycle with an 
engine cylinder capacity in the case of a thermic engine exceeding 50 
cm\3\ or whatever the means of propulsion a maximum design speed 
exceeding 50 km/h.
    Category 3-4 motorcycle means a motorcycle manufactured with three 
wheels asymmetrically arranged in relation to the longitudinal median 
plane with an engine cylinder capacity in the case of a thermic engine 
exceeding 50 cm\3\ or whatever the means of propulsion a maximum design 
speed exceeding 50 km/h. (This category definition is intended to 
include motorcycles with sidecars.)
    Category 3-5 motorcycle means a motorcycle manufactured with three 
wheels symmetrically arranged in relation to the longitudinal median 
plane with an engine cylinder capacity in the case of a thermic engine 
exceeding 50 cm\3\ or whatever the means of propulsion a maximum design 
speed exceeding 50 km/h.
    Combined brake system or CBS means:
    (a) For motorcycle categories 3-1 and 3-3: a service brake system 
where at least two brakes on different wheels are actuated by the 
operation of a single control.
    (b) For motorcycle categories 3-2 and 3-5: a service brake system 
where the brakes on all wheels are actuated by the operation of a 
single control.
    (c) For motorcycle category 3-4: a service brake system where the 
brakes on at least the front and rear wheels are actuated by the 
operation of a single control. (If the rear wheel and the asymmetrical 
wheel are braked by the same brake system, this is regarded as the rear 
brake.)
    Control means the part actuated directly by the rider in order to 
supply and regulate the energy required for braking the motorcycle.
    Driver mass means the nominal mass of a driver that equals 75 kg 
(68 kg occupant mass plus 7kg of luggage mass).
    Engine disconnected means when the engine is no longer internally 
connected to the driving wheel(s), i.e., the clutch is disengaged and/
or the transmission is in neutral.
    Gross vehicle mass means the maximum mass of the fully laden solo 
vehicle, based on its construction and design performances, as declared 
by the manufacturer.
    Initial brake temperature means the temperature of the hottest 
brake before any brake application.
    Laden means the gross vehicle mass.
    Lightly loaded means mass in running order plus 15 kg for test 
equipment, or the laden condition, whichever is less. In the case of 
ABS tests on a low friction surface (paragraphs S6.9.4 to S6.9.7), the 
mass for test equipment is increased to 30 kg to account for 
outriggers.
    Mass in running order means the sum of unladen vehicle mass and 
driver mass.
    Peak braking coefficient or PBC means the measure of tire-to-road 
surface friction based on the maximum deceleration of a rolling tire.
    Power-assisted braking system means a brake system in which the 
energy necessary to produce the braking force is supplied by the 
physical effort of the rider assisted by one or more energy supplying 
devices, for example vacuum assisted (with vacuum booster).
    Secondary brake system means the second service brake system on a 
motorcycle equipped with a combined brake system.
    Service brake system means a brake system which is used for slowing 
the motorcycle when in motion.
    Sidecar means a one-wheeled vehicle that is attached to the side of 
a motorcycle.
    Single brake system means a brake system which acts on only one 
axle.
    Split service brake system or SSBS means a brake system that 
operates the brakes on all wheels, consisting of two or more subsystems 
actuated by a single control designed so that a single failure in any 
subsystem (such as a leakage type failure of a hydraulic subsystem) 
does not impair the operation of any other subsystem.
    Stopping distance means the distance traveled by the motorcycle 
from the point the rider begins to actuate the brake control to the 
point at which the motorcycle reaches full stop. For tests where 
simultaneous actuation of two controls is specified, the distance 
traveled is taken from the point the first control is actuated.
    Test speed means the motorcycle speed measured the moment the rider 
begins to actuate the brake control. For tests where simultaneous 
actuation of two controls is specified, the motorcycle speed is taken 
from the moment the first control is actuated.
    Unladen vehicle mass means the nominal mass of a complete vehicle 
as determined by the following criteria:
    (a) Mass of the vehicle with bodywork and all factory fitted 
equipment, electrical and auxiliary equipment for normal operation of 
vehicle, including liquids, tools, fire extinguisher, standard spare 
parts, chocks and spare wheel, if fitted.
    (b) The fuel tanks filled to at least 90 percent of rated capacity 
and the other liquid containing systems (except those for used water) 
to 100 percent of the capacity specified by the manufacturer.
    Vmax means either the speed attainable by accelerating at a maximum 
rate from a standing start for a distance of 1.6 km on a level surface, 
with the vehicle lightly loaded, or the speed measured in accordance 
with International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 7117:1995(E) 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  571.5).
    Wheel lock means the condition that occurs when there is 100 
percent wheel slip.
    S5. General requirements.
    S5.1 Brake system requirements. Each motorcycle shall meet each of 
the test requirements specified for a motorcycle of its category and 
for those brake features on the motorcycle.
    S5.1.1 Service brake system control operation. Each motorcycle 
shall have a configuration that enables a rider to actuate the service 
brake system control while seated in the normal driving

[[Page 51673]]

position and with both hands on the steering control.
    S5.1.2 Secondary brake system control operation. Each motorcycle 
shall have a configuration that enables a rider to actuate the 
secondary brake system control while seated in the normal driving 
position and with at least one hand on the steering control.
    S5.1.3 Parking brake system.
    (a) If a parking brake system is fitted, it shall hold the 
motorcycle stationary on the slope prescribed in S6.8.2. The parking 
brake system shall:
    (1) have a control which is separate from the service brake system 
controls; and
    (2) be held in the locked position by solely mechanical means.
    (b) Each motorcycle equipped with a parking brake shall have a 
configuration that enables a rider to be able to actuate the parking 
brake system while seated in the normal driving position.
    S5.1.4 Two-wheeled motorcycles of categories 3-1 and 3-3. Each 
category 3-1 and 3-3 two-wheeled motorcycle shall be equipped with 
either two separate service brake systems, or a split service brake 
system, with at least one brake operating on the front wheel and at 
least one brake operating on the rear wheel.
    S5.1.5 Three-wheeled motorcycles of category 3-4. Each category 3-4 
motorcycle shall comply with the brake system requirements in S5.1.4. A 
brake on the asymmetric wheel (with respect to the longitudinal axis) 
is not required.
    S5.1.6 Three-wheeled motorcycles of category 3-2. Each category 3-2 
motorcycle shall be equipped with a parking brake system plus one of 
the following service brake systems:
    (a) Two separate service brake systems, except CBS, which, when 
applied together, operate the brakes on all wheels; or
    (b) A split service brake system; or
    (c) A CBS that operates the brake on all wheels and a secondary 
brake system which may be the parking brake system.
    S5.1.7 Three-wheeled motorcycles of categories 3-5. Each category 
3-5 motorcycle shall be equipped with:
    (a) A parking brake system; and
    (b) A foot actuated service brake system which operates the brakes 
on all wheels by way of either:
    (1) A split service brake system; or
    (2) A CBS and a secondary brake system, which may be the parking 
brake system.
    S5.1.8 Two separate service brake systems. For motorcycles where 
two separate service brake systems are installed, the systems may share 
a common brake, if a failure in one system does not affect the 
performance of the other.
    S5.1.9 Hydraulic service brake system. For motorcycles that use 
hydraulic fluid for brake force transmission, the master cylinder 
shall:
    (a) Have a sealed, covered, separate reservoir for each brake 
system; and
    (b) Have a minimum reservoir capacity equivalent to 1.5 times the 
total fluid displacement required to satisfy the new to fully worn 
lining condition with the worst case brake adjustment conditions; and
    (c) Have a reservoir where the fluid level is visible for checking 
without removal of the cover.
    (d) Have a brake fluid warning statement that reads as follows, in 
letters at least 3/32 of an inch high: Warning: Clean filler cap before 
removing. Use only -------- fluid from a sealed container (inserting 
the recommended type of brake fluid as specified in accordance with 49 
CFR 571.116, e.g., ``DOT 3''). The lettering shall be:
    (1) Permanently affixed, engraved, or embossed;
    (2) Located so as to be visible by direct view, either on or within 
4 inches of the brake-fluid reservoir filler plug or cap; and
    (3) Of a color that contrasts with its background, if it is not 
engraved or embossed.
    S5.1.10 Warning lamps. All warning lamps shall be mounted in the 
rider's view.
    S5.1.10.1 Split service brake system warning lamps.
    (a) Each motorcycle that is equipped with a split service brake 
system shall be fitted with a red warning lamp, which shall be 
activated:
    (1) When there is a hydraulic failure on the application of a force 
of <= 90 N on the control; or
    (2) Without actuation of the brake control, when the brake fluid 
level in the master cylinder reservoir falls below the greater of:
    (i) That which is specified by the manufacturer; or
    (ii) That which is less than or equal to half of the fluid 
reservoir capacity.
    (b) To permit function checking, the warning lamp shall be 
illuminated by the activation of the ignition switch and shall be 
extinguished when the check has been completed. The warning lamp shall 
remain on while a failure condition exists whenever the ignition switch 
is in the ``on'' position.
    (c) Each indicator lamp shall have the legend ``Brake Failure'' on 
or adjacent to it in letters not less than 3/32 of an inch high that 
shall be legible to the driver in daylight when lighted.
    S5.1.10.2 Antilock brake system warning lamps.
    (a) Each motorcycle equipped with an ABS system shall be fitted 
with a yellow warning lamp. The lamp shall be activated whenever there 
is a malfunction that affects the generation or transmission of signals 
in the motorcycle's ABS system.
    (b) To permit function checking, the warning lamp shall be 
illuminated by the activation of the ignition switch and extinguished 
when the check has been completed. The warning lamp shall remain on 
while a failure condition exists whenever the ignition switch is in the 
``on'' position.
    (c) The indicator shall be labeled in letters at least 3/32 of an 
inch high with the words ``Antilock'' or ``Anti-lock'' or ``ABS'' in 
accordance with Table 1 of Standard No. 101 (49 CFR 571.101).
    S5.2 Durability.
    S5.2.1 Compensation for wear. Wear of the brakes shall be 
compensated for by means of a system of automatic or manual adjustment.
    S5.2.2 Notice of wear. The friction material thickness shall either 
be visible without disassembly, or where the friction material is not 
visible, wear shall be assessed by means of a device designed for that 
purpose.
    S5.2.3 Testing. During all the tests in this standard and on their 
completion, there shall be no friction material detachment and no 
leakage of brake fluid.
    S5.3 Measurement of dynamic performance. There are two ways in 
which brake system performance is measured. The particular method to be 
used is specified in the respective tests in S6.
    S5.3.1 Stopping distance.
    (a) Based on the basic equations of motion:

S = 0.1[middot]V + (X) [middot]V\2\,

Where:

S = stopping distance in meters
V = initial vehicle speed in km/h
X = a variable based on the requirement for each test

    (b) To calculate the corrected stopping distance using the actual 
vehicle test speed, the following formula is used:

Ss = 0.1[middot]Vs + (Sa-0.1[middot]Va) [middot] Vs\2\/Va\2\,

Where:

Ss = corrected stopping distance in meters
Vs = specified vehicle test speed in km/h
Sa = actual stopping distance in meters
Va = actual vehicle test speed in km/h


    Note to S5.3.1(b): This equation is only valid when the actual 
test speed (Va) is within  5 km/h of the specified test 
speed (Vs).

    S5.3.2 Continuous deceleration recording. The other method used to 
measure performance is the continuous

[[Page 51674]]

recording of the vehicle instantaneous deceleration from the moment a 
force is applied to the brake control until the end of the stop.
    S6. Test conditions, procedures and performance requirements.
    S6.1 General.
    S6.1.1 Test surfaces.
    S6.1.1.1 High friction surface. A high friction surface is used for 
all dynamic brake tests excluding the ABS tests where a low-friction 
surface is specified. The high-friction surface test area is a clean, 
dry and level surface, with a gradient of <= 1 percent. The high-
friction surface has a peak braking coefficient (PBC) of 0.9.
    S6.1.1.2 Low-friction surface. A low-friction surface is used for 
ABS tests where a low-friction surface is specified. The low-friction 
surface test area is a clean and level surface, which may be wet or 
dry, with a gradient of <= 1 percent. The low-friction surface has a 
PBC of <= 0.45.
    S6.1.1.3 Measurement of PBC. The PBC is measured using the American 
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E1136-93 (Reapproved 2003) 
standard reference test tire, in accordance with ASTM Method E1337-90 
(Reapproved 2008), at a speed of 64 km/h (both publications 
incorporated by reference; see Sec.  571.5).
    S6.1.1.4 Parking brake system tests. The specified test slope has a 
clean and dry surface that does not deform under the weight of the 
motorcycle.
    S6.1.1.5 Test lane width. For two-wheeled motorcycles (motorcycle 
categories 3-1 and 3-3) the test lane width is 2.5 meters. For three-
wheeled motorcycles (motorcycle categories 3-2, 3-4 and 3-5) the test 
lane width is 2.5 meters plus the vehicle width.
    S6.1.2 Ambient temperature. The ambient temperature is between 4 
[deg]C and 45 [deg]C.
    S6.1.3 Wind speed. The wind speed is not more than 5 meters per 
second (m/s).
    S6.1.4 Test speed tolerance. The test speed tolerance is  5 km/h. In the event of the actual test speed deviating from the 
specified test speed (but within the  5 km/h tolerance), 
the actual stopping distance is corrected using the formula in 
S5.3.1(b).
    S6.1.5 Automatic transmission. Motorcycles with automatic 
transmission shall meet all test requirements--whether they are for 
``engine connected'' or ``engine disconnected.'' If an automatic 
transmission has a neutral position, the neutral position is selected 
for tests where ``engine disconnected'' is specified.
    S6.1.6 Vehicle position and wheel lock. The vehicle is positioned 
in the center of the test lane for the beginning of each stop. Stops 
are made without the vehicle wheels passing outside the applicable test 
lane and without wheel lock.
    S6.1.7 Test sequence. Test sequence is as specified in Table 1.
    S6.2 Preparation.
    S6.2.1 Engine idle speed. The engine idle speed is set to the 
manufacturer's specification.
    S6.2.2 Tire pressures. The tires are inflated to the manufacturer's 
specification for the vehicle loading condition for the test.
    S6.2.3 Control application points and direction. For a hand control 
lever, the input force (F) is applied on the control lever's forward 
surface perpendicular to the axis of the lever fulcrum and its 
outermost point on the plane along which the control lever rotates (see 
Figure 1). The input force is applied to a point located 50 millimeters 
(mm) from the outermost point of the control lever, measured along the 
axis between the central axis of the fulcrum of the lever and its 
outermost point. For a foot control pedal, the input force is applied 
to the center of, and at right angles to, the control pedal.
    S6.2.4 Brake temperature measurement. The brake temperature is 
measured on the approximate center of the facing length and width of 
the most heavily loaded shoe or disc pad, one per brake, using a plug-
type thermocouple that is embedded in the friction material, as shown 
in Figure 2.
    S6.2.5 Burnishing procedure. The vehicle brakes are burnished prior 
to evaluating performance.
    S6.2.5.1 Vehicle condition.
    (a) Vehicle lightly loaded.
    (b) Engine disconnected.
    S6.2.5.2 Conditions and procedure.
    (a) Initial brake temperature. Initial brake temperature before 
each brake application is <= 100 [deg]C.
    (b) Test speed.
    (1) Initial speed: 50 km/h or 0.8 Vmax, whichever is lower.
    (2) Final speed = 5 to 10 km/h.
    (c) Brake application. Each service brake system control actuated 
separately.
    (d) Vehicle deceleration.
    (1) Single front brake system only:
    (i) 3.0-3.5 meters per second squared (m/s\2\) for motorcycle 
categories 3-3 and 3-4
    (ii) 1.5-2.0 m/s\2\ for motorcycle categories 3-1 and 3-2
    (2) Single rear brake system only: 1.5-2.0 m/s\2\
    (3) CBS or split service brake system, and category 3-5: 3.5-4.0 m/
s\2\
    (e) Number of decelerations. There shall be 100 decelerations per 
brake system.
    (f) For the first stop, accelerate the vehicle to the initial speed 
and then actuate the brake control under the conditions specified until 
the final speed is reached. Then reaccelerate to the initial speed and 
maintain that speed until the brake temperature falls to the specified 
initial value. When these conditions are met, reapply the brake as 
specified. Repeat this procedure for the number of specified 
decelerations. After burnishing, adjust the brakes in accordance with 
the manufacturer's recommendations.
    S6.3 Dry stop test--single brake control actuated.
    S6.3.1 Vehicle condition.
    (a) The test is applicable to all motorcycle categories.
    (b) Laden. For vehicles fitted with CBS and split service brake 
system, the vehicle is tested in the lightly loaded condition in 
addition to the laden condition.
    (c) Engine disconnected.
    S6.3.2 Test conditions and procedure.
    (a) Initial brake temperature. Initial brake temperature is >= 55 
[deg]C and <= 100 [deg]C.
    (b) Test speed.
    (1) Motorcycle categories 3-1 and 3-2: 40 km/h or 0.9 Vmax, 
whichever is lower.
    (2) Motorcycle categories 3-3, 3-4 and 3-5: 60 km/h or 0.9 Vmax, 
whichever is lower.
    (c) Brake application. Each service brake system control actuated 
separately.
    (d) Brake actuation force.
    (1) Hand control: <= 200 N.
    (2) Foot control:
    (i) <= 350 N for motorcycle categories 3-1, 3-2, 3-3 and 3-5.
    (ii) <= 500 N for motorcycle category 3-4.
    (e) Number of stops: until the vehicle meets the performance 
requirements, with a maximum of 6 stops.
    (f) For each stop, accelerate the vehicle to the test speed and 
then actuate the brake control under the conditions specified in this 
paragraph.
    S6.3.3 Performance requirements. When the brakes are tested in 
accordance with the test procedure set out in paragraph S6.3.2., the 
stopping distance shall be as specified in column 2 of Table 2.
    S6.4 Dry stop test--all service brake controls actuated.
    S6.4.1 Vehicle condition.
    (a) The test is applicable to motorcycle categories 3-3, 3-4 and 3-
5.
    (b) Lightly loaded.

[[Page 51675]]

    (c) Engine disconnected.
    S6.4.2 Test conditions and procedure.
    (a) Initial brake temperature. Initial brake temperature is >= 55 
[deg]C and <= 100 [deg]C.
    (b) Test speed. Test speed is 100 km/h or 0.9 Vmax, whichever is 
lower.
    (c) Brake application. Simultaneous actuation of both service brake 
system controls, if so equipped, or of the single service brake system 
control in the case of a service brake system that operates on all 
wheels.
    (d) Brake actuation force.
    (1) Hand control: <= 250 N.
    (2) Foot control:
    (i) <= 400 N for motorcycle categories 3-3 and 3-4.
    (ii) <= 500 N for motorcycle category 3-5.
    (e) Number of stops: until the vehicle meets the performance 
requirements, with a maximum of 6 stops.
    (f) For each stop, accelerate the vehicle to the test speed and 
then actuate the brake control under the conditions specified in this 
paragraph.
    S6.4.3 Performance requirements. When the brakes are tested in 
accordance with the test procedure set out in paragraph S6.4.2., the 
stopping distance (S) shall be S <= 0.0060 V\2\ (where V is the 
specified test speed in km/h and S is the required stopping distance in 
meters).
    S6.5 High speed test.
    S6.5.1 Vehicle condition.
    (a) The test is applicable to motorcycle categories 3-3, 3-4 and 3-
5.
    (b) Test is not required for vehicles with Vmax <= 125 km/h.
    (c) Lightly loaded.
    (d) Engine connected (clutch engaged) with the transmission in the 
highest gear.
    S6.5.2 Test conditions and procedure.
    (a) Initial brake temperature. Initial brake temperature is >= 55 
[deg]C and <= 100 [deg]C.
    (b) Test speed.
    (1) Test speed is 0.8 Vmax for motorcycles with Vmax > 125 km/h and 
< 200 km/h.
    (2) Test speed is 160 km/h for motorcycles with Vmax >= 200 km/h.
    (c) Brake application. Simultaneous actuation of both service brake 
system controls, if so equipped, or of the single service brake system 
control in the case of a service brake system that operates on all 
wheels.
    (d) Brake actuation force.
    (1) Hand control: <= 200 N.
    (2) Foot control:
    (i) <= 350 N for motorcycle categories 3-3 and 3-4.
    (ii) <= 500 N for motorcycle category 3-5.
    (e) Number of stops: until the vehicle meets the performance 
requirements, with a maximum of 6 stops.
    (f) For each stop, accelerate the vehicle to the test speed and 
then actuate the brake control(s) under the conditions specified in 
this paragraph.
    S6.5.3 Performance requirements. When the brakes are tested in 
accordance with the test procedure set out in paragraph S6.5.2, the 
stopping distance (S) shall be <= 0.1 V + 0.0067 V\2\ (where V is the 
specified test speed in km/h and S is the required stopping distance in 
meters).
    S6.6 Wet brake test.
    S6.6.1 General information.
    (a) The test is comprised of two parts that are carried out 
consecutively for each brake system:
    (1) A baseline test based on the dry stop test--single brake 
control actuated (S6.3).
    (2) A single wet brake stop using the same test parameters as in 
(1), but with the brake(s) being continuously sprayed with water while 
the test is conducted in order to measure the brakes' performance in 
wet conditions.
    (b) The test is not applicable to parking brake systems unless it 
is the secondary brake.
    (c) Drum brakes or fully enclosed disc brakes are excluded from 
this test unless ventilation or open inspection ports are present.
    (d) This test requires the vehicle to be fitted with 
instrumentation that gives a continuous recording of brake control 
force and vehicle deceleration.
    S6.6.2 Vehicle condition.
    (a) The test is applicable to all motorcycle categories.
    (b) Laden. For vehicles fitted with CBS and split service brake 
system, the vehicle is tested in the lightly loaded condition in 
addition to the laden condition.
    (c) Engine disconnected.
    (d) Each brake is fitted with water spray equipment as shown in 
Figure 3.
    (1) Disc brakes--sketch of water spray equipment. The disc brake 
water spray equipment is installed as follows:
    (i) Water is sprayed onto each brake with a flow rate of 15 liters/
hr. The water is equally distributed on each side of the rotor.
    (ii) If the surface of the rotor has any shielding, the spray is 
applied 45[deg] prior to the shield.
    (iii) If it is not possible to locate the spray in the position 
shown on the sketch, or if the spray coincides with a brake ventilation 
hole or similar, the spray nozzle may be advanced by an additional 
90[deg] maximum from the edge of the pad, using the same radius.
    (2) Drum brakes with ventilation and open inspection ports. The 
water spray equipment is installed as follows:
    (i) Water is sprayed equally onto both sides of the drum brake 
assembly (on the stationary back plate and on the rotating drum) with a 
flow rate of 15 liters/hr.
    (ii) The spray nozzles are positioned two thirds of the distance 
from the outer circumference of the rotating drum to the wheel hub 
center.
    (iii) The nozzle position is > 15[deg] from the edge of any opening 
in the drum back plate.
    S6.6.3 Baseline test--test conditions and procedure.
    (a) The test in paragraph S6.3 (dry stop test--single brake control 
actuated) is carried out for each brake system but with the brake 
control force that results in a vehicle deceleration of 2.5-3.0 m/s\2\, 
and the following is determined:
    (1) The average brake control force measured when the vehicle is 
traveling between 80 percent and 10 percent of the specified test 
speed.
    (2) The average vehicle deceleration in the period 0.5 to 1.0 
seconds after the point of actuation of the brake control.
    (3) The maximum vehicle deceleration during the complete stop but 
excluding the final 0.5 seconds.
    (b) Conduct 3 baseline stops and average the values obtained in 
(1), (2), and (3).
    S6.6.4 Wet brake test--test conditions and procedure.
    (a) The vehicle is ridden at the test speed used in the baseline 
test set out in S6.6.3 with the water spray equipment operating on the 
brake(s) to be tested and with no application of the brake system.
    (b) After a distance of >= 500 m, apply the average brake control 
force determined in the baseline test for the brake system being 
tested.
    (c) Measure the average vehicle deceleration in the period 0.5 to 
1.0 seconds after the point of actuation of the brake control.
    (d) Measure the maximum vehicle deceleration during the complete 
stop but excluding the final 0.5 seconds.
    S6.6.5 Performance requirements. When the brakes are tested in 
accordance with the test procedure set out in paragraph S6.6.4, the wet 
brake deceleration performance shall be:
    (a) The value measured in paragraph S6.6.4(c) shall be >= 60 
percent of the average deceleration values recorded in the baseline 
test in paragraph S6.6.3(a)(2), i.e., in the period 0.5 to 1.0 seconds 
after the point of actuation of the brake control; and
    (b) The value measured in S6.6.4(d) shall be <= 120 percent of the 
average

[[Page 51676]]

deceleration values recorded in the baseline test S6.6.3(a)(3), i.e., 
during the complete stop but excluding the final 0.5 seconds.
    S6.7 Heat fade test.
    S6.7.1 General information.
    (a) The test comprises three parts that are carried out 
consecutively for each brake system:
    (1) A baseline test using the dry stop test--single brake control 
actuated (S6.3).
    (2) A heating procedure which consists of a series of repeated 
stops in order to heat the brake(s).
    (3) A hot brake stop using the dry stop test--single brake control 
actuated (S6.3), to measure the brake's performance after the heating 
procedure.
    (b) The test is applicable to motorcycle categories 3-3, 3-4 and 3-
5.
    (c) The test is not applicable to parking brake systems and 
secondary service brake systems.
    (d) All stops are carried out with the motorcycle laden.
    (e) The heating procedure requires the motorcycle to be fitted with 
instrumentation that gives a continuous recording of brake control 
force and vehicle deceleration.
    S6.7.2 Baseline test.
    S6.7.2.1 Vehicle condition--baseline test. Engine disconnected.
    S6.7.2.2 Test conditions and procedure--baseline test.
    (a) Initial brake temperature. Initial brake temperature is >= 55 
[deg]C and <= 100 [deg]C.
    (b) Test speed. Test speed is 60 km/h or 0.9 Vmax, whichever is the 
lower.
    (c) Brake application. Each service brake system control is 
actuated separately.
    (d) Brake actuation force.
    (1) Hand control: <= 200 N.
    (2) Foot control:
    (i) <= 350 N for motorcycle categories 3-3 and 3-4.
    (ii) <= 500 N for motorcycle category 3-5.
    (e) Accelerate the vehicle to the test speed, actuate the brake 
control under the conditions specified and record the control force 
required to achieve the vehicle braking performance specified in the 
table to S6.3.3 (Table 2).
    S6.7.3 Heating procedure.
    S6.7.3.1 Vehicle condition--heating procedure. Engine transmission:
    (a) From the specified test speed to 50 per cent specified test 
speed: connected, with the highest appropriate gear selected such that 
the engine speed remains above the manufacturer's specified idle speed.
    (b) From 50 per cent specified test speed to standstill: 
disconnected.
    S6.7.3.2 Test conditions and procedure--heating procedure.
    (a) Initial brake temperature. Initial brake temperature is (prior 
to first stop only) >= 55 [deg]C and <= 100 [deg]C.
    (b) Test speed.
    (1) Single brake system, front wheel braking only: 100 km/h or 0.7 
Vmax, whichever is the lower.
    (2) Single brake system, rear wheel braking only: 80 km/h or 0.7 
Vmax, whichever is the lower.
    (3) CBS or split service brake system: 100 km/h or 0.7 Vmax, 
whichever is the lower.
    (c) Brake application. Each service brake system control actuated 
separately.
    (d) Brake actuation force.
    (1) For the first stop: The constant control force that achieves a 
vehicle deceleration rate of 3.0--3.5 m/s\2\ while the vehicle is 
decelerating between 80 percent and 10 percent of the specified speed.
    (2) For the remaining stops:
    (i) The same constant brake control force as used for the first 
stop.
    (ii) Number of stops: 10.
    (iii) Interval between stops: 1000 m.
    (e) Carry out a stop to the conditions specified in this paragraph 
and then immediately use maximum acceleration to reach the specified 
speed and maintain that speed until the next stop is made.
    S6.7.4 Hot brake stop--test conditions and procedure. Perform a 
single stop under the conditions used in the baseline test (S6.7.2) for 
the brake system that has been heated during the procedure in 
accordance with S6.7.3. This stop is carried out within one minute of 
the completion of the procedure set out in S6.7.3 with a brake control 
application force less than or equal to the force used during the test 
set out in S6.7.2.
    S6.7.5 Performance requirements. When the brakes are tested in 
accordance with the test procedure set out in S6.7.4, the stopping 
distance S2 shall be <= 1.67 S1-0.67 x 0.1V,

Where:

S1 = corrected stopping distance in meters achieved in 
the baseline test set out in S6.7.2.
S2 = corrected stopping distance in meters achieved in 
the hot brake stop set out in S6.7.4.
V = specified test speed in km/h.

    S6.8 Parking brake system test--for motorcycles with parking 
brakes.
    S6.8.1 Vehicle condition.
    (a) The test is applicable to motorcycle categories 3-2, 3-4 and 3-
5.
    (b) Laden.
    (c) Engine disconnected.
    S6.8.2 Test conditions and procedure.
    (a) Initial brake temperature. Initial brake temperature is <= 100 
[deg]C.
    (b) Test surface gradient. Test surface gradient is equal to 18 
percent.
    (c) Brake actuation force.
    (1) Hand control: <= 400 N.
    (2) Foot control: <= 500 N.
    (d) For the first part of the test, park the vehicle on the test 
surface gradient facing up the slope by applying the parking brake 
system under the conditions specified in this paragraph. If the vehicle 
remains stationary, start the measurement of the test period.
    (e) The vehicle must remain stationary to the limits of traction of 
the braked wheels.
    (f) On completion of the test with vehicle facing up the gradient, 
repeat the same test procedure with the vehicle facing down the 
gradient.
    S6.8.3 Performance requirements. When tested in accordance with the 
test procedure set out in S6.8.2, the parking brake system shall hold 
the vehicle stationary for 5 minutes when the vehicle is both facing up 
and facing down the gradient.
    S6.9 ABS tests.
    S6.9.1 General.
    (a) The tests are only applicable to the ABS fitted on motorcycle 
categories 3-1 and 3-3.
    (b) The tests are to confirm the performance of brake systems 
equipped with ABS and their performance in the event of ABS electrical 
failure.
    (c) Fully cycling means that the anti-lock system is repeatedly 
modulating the brake force to prevent the directly controlled wheels 
from locking.
    (d) Wheel-lock is allowed as long as the stability of the vehicle 
is not affected to the extent that it requires the operator to release 
the control or causes a vehicle wheel to pass outside the test lane.
    (e) The test series comprises the individual tests in Table 3, 
which may be carried out in any order.
    S6.9.2 Vehicle condition.
    (a) Lightly loaded.
    (b) Engine disconnected.
    S6.9.3 Stops on a high friction surface.
    S6.9.3.1 Test conditions and procedure.
    (a) Initial brake temperature. Initial brake temperature is >= 55 
[deg]C and <= 100 [deg]C.
    (b) Test speed. Test speed is 60 km/h or 0.9 Vmax, whichever is 
lower.
    (c) Brake application. Simultaneous actuation of both service brake 
system controls, if so equipped, or of the single service brake control 
in the case of a service brake system that operates on all wheels.

[[Page 51677]]

    (d) Brake actuation force. The force applied is that which is 
necessary to ensure that the ABS will cycle fully throughout each stop, 
down to 10 km/h.
    (e) If one wheel is not equipped with ABS, the control for the 
service brake on that wheel is actuated with a force that is lower than 
the force that will cause the wheel to lock.
    (f) Number of stops: until the vehicle meets the performance 
requirements, with a maximum of 6 stops.
    (g) For each stop, accelerate the vehicle to the test speed and 
then actuate the brake control under the conditions specified in this 
paragraph.
    S6.9.3.2 Performance requirements. When the brakes are tested in 
accordance with the test procedures referred to in S6.9.3.1:
    (a) The stopping distance (S) shall be <= 0.0063 V\2\ (where V is 
the specified test speed in km/h and S is the required stopping 
distance in meters); and
    (b) there shall be no wheel lock beyond that allowed for in 
paragraph S6.9.1(d), and the vehicle wheels shall stay within the test 
lane.
    S6.9.4 Stops on a low friction surface.
    S6.9.4.1 Test conditions and procedure. As set out in S6.9.3.1, but 
using the low friction surface instead of the high friction one.
    S6.9.4.2 Performance requirements. When the brakes are tested in 
accordance with the test procedures set out in S6.9.4.1:
    (a) the stopping distance (S) shall be <= 0.0056 V\2\/P (where V is 
the specified test speed in km/h, P is the peak braking coefficient and 
S is the required stopping distance in meters); and
    (b) there shall be no wheel lock beyond that allowed for in 
paragraph S6.9.1(d), and the vehicle wheels shall stay within the test 
lane.
    S6.9.5 Wheel lock checks on high and low friction surfaces.
    S6.9.5.1 Test conditions and procedure.
    (a) Test surfaces. High friction or low friction surface, as 
applicable.
    (b) Initial brake temperature. Initial brake temperature is >= 55 
[deg]C and <= 100 [deg]C.
    (c) Test speed.
    (1) On the high friction surface: 80 km/h or 0.8 Vmax, whichever is 
lower.
    (2) On the low friction surface: 60 km/h or 0.8 Vmax, whichever is 
lower.
    (d) Brake application.
    (1) Each service brake system control actuated separately.
    (2) Where ABS is fitted to both brake systems, simultaneous 
actuation of both brake controls in addition to (1).
    (e) Brake actuation force. The force applied is that which is 
necessary to ensure that the ABS will cycle fully throughout each stop, 
down to 10 km/h.
    (f) Brake application rate. The brake control actuation force is 
applied in 0.2-0.5 seconds.
    (g) Number of stops: until the vehicle meets the performance 
requirements, with a maximum of 3 stops.
    (h) For each stop, accelerate the vehicle to the test speed and 
then actuate the brake control under the conditions specified in this 
paragraph.
    S6.9.5.2 Performance requirements. When the brakes are tested in 
accordance with the test procedures set out in S6.9.5.1, there shall be 
no wheel lock beyond that allowed for in paragraph S6.9.1(d), and the 
vehicle wheels shall stay within the test lane.
    S6.9.6 Wheel lock check--high to low friction surface transition.
    S6.9.6.1 Test conditions and procedure.
    (a) Test surfaces. A high friction surface immediately followed by 
a low friction surface.
    (b) Initial brake temperature. Initial brake temperature is >= 55 
[deg]C and <= 100 [deg]C.
    (c) Test speed. The speed that will result in 50 km/h or 0.5 Vmax, 
whichever is the lower, at the point where the vehicle passes from the 
high friction to the low friction surface.
    (d) Brake application.
    (1) Each service brake system control actuated separately.
    (2) Where ABS is fitted to both brake systems, simultaneous 
actuation of both brake controls in addition to (1).
    (e) Brake actuation force. The force applied is that which is 
necessary to ensure that the ABS will cycle fully throughout each stop, 
down to 10 km/h.
    (f) Number of stops: until the vehicle meets the performance 
requirements, with a maximum of 3 stops.
    (g) For each stop, accelerate the vehicle to the test speed and 
then actuate the brake control before the vehicle reaches the 
transition from one friction surface to the other.
    S6.9.6.2 Performance requirements. When the brakes are tested in 
accordance with the test procedures set out in S6.9.6.1, there shall be 
no wheel lock beyond that allowed for in paragraph S6.9.1(d), and the 
vehicle wheels shall stay within the test lane.
    S6.9.7 Wheel lock check--low to high friction surface transition.
    S6.9.7.1 Test conditions and procedure.
    (a) Test surfaces. A low friction surface immediately followed by a 
high friction surface with a PBC >= 0.8.
    (b) Initial brake temperature. Initial brake temperature is >=55 
[deg]C and <=100 [deg]C.
    (c) Test speed. The speed that will result in 50 km/h or 0.5 Vmax, 
whichever is the lower, at the point where the vehicle passes from the 
low friction to the high friction surface.
    (d) Brake application.
    (1) Each service brake system control applied separately.
    (2) Where ABS is fitted to both brake systems, simultaneous 
application of both brake controls in addition to (1).
    (e) Brake actuation force. The force applied is that which is 
necessary to ensure that the ABS will cycle fully throughout each stop, 
down to 10 km/h.
    (f) Number of stops: until the vehicle meets the performance 
requirements, with a maximum of 3 stops.
    (g) For each stop, accelerate the vehicle to the test speed and 
then actuate the brake control before the vehicle reaches the 
transition from one friction surface to the other.
    (h) Record the vehicle's continuous deceleration.
    S6.9.7.2 Performance requirements. When the brakes are tested in 
accordance with the test procedures set out in S6.9.7.1:
    (a) There shall be no wheel lock beyond that allowed for in 
paragraph S6.9.1(d), and the vehicle wheels shall stay within the test 
lane, and
    (b) within 1 second of the rear wheel passing the transition point 
between the low and high friction surfaces, the vehicle deceleration 
shall increase.
    S6.9.8 Stops with an ABS electrical failure.
    S6.9.8.1 Test conditions and procedure. With the ABS electrical 
system disabled, carry out the test set out in S6.3 (dry stop test--
single brake control actuated) applying the conditions relevant to the 
brake system and vehicle being tested.
    S6.9.8.2 Performance requirements. When the brakes are tested in 
accordance with the test procedure set out in S6.9.8.1:
    (a) The system shall comply with the failure warning requirements 
of S5.1.10.2; and
    (b) the minimum requirements for stopping distance shall be as 
specified in column 2 under the heading ``Single brake system, rear 
wheel(s) braking only'' in Table 2.
    S6.10 Partial failure test--for split service brake systems.
    S6.10.1 General information.
    (a) The test is only applicable to vehicles that are equipped with 
split service brake systems.
    (b) The test is to confirm the performance of the remaining 
subsystem

[[Page 51678]]

in the event of a hydraulic system leakage failure.
    S6.10.2 Vehicle condition.
    (a) The test is applicable to motorcycle categories 3-3, 3-4 and 3-
5.
    (b) Lightly loaded.
    (c) Engine disconnected.
    S6.10.3 Test conditions and procedure.
    (a) Initial brake temperature. Initial brake temperature is >= 55 
[deg]C and <= 100 [deg]C.
    (b) Test speed. Test speed is 50 km/h and 100 km/h or 0.8 Vmax, 
whichever is lower.
    (c) Brake actuation force.
    (1) Hand control: <= 250 N.
    (2) Foot control: <= 400 N.
    (d) Number of stops: until the vehicle meets the performance 
requirements, with a maximum of 6 stops for each test speed.
    (e) Alter the service brake system to induce a complete loss of 
braking in any one subsystem. Then, for each stop, accelerate the 
vehicle to the test speed and then actuate the brake control under the 
conditions specified in this paragraph.
    (f) Repeat the test for each subsystem.
    S6.10.4 Performance requirements. When the brakes are tested in 
accordance with the test procedure set out in S6.10.3:
    (a) the system shall comply with the failure warning requirements 
set out in paragraph S5.1.10.1; and
    (b) the stopping distance (S) shall be <= 0.1 V + 0.0117 V\2\ 
(where V is the specified test speed in km/h and S is the required 
stopping distance in meters).
    S6.11 Power-assisted braking system failure test.
    S6.11.1 General information.
    (a) The test is not conducted when the vehicle is equipped with 
another separate service brake system.
    (b) The test is to confirm the performance of the service brake 
system in the event of failure of the power assistance.
    S6.11.2 Test conditions and procedure. Carry out the test set out 
in S6.3.3 (dry stop test--single brake control actuated) for each 
service brake system with the power assistance disabled.
    S6.11.3 Performance requirements. When the brakes are tested in 
accordance with the test procedure set out in S6.11.2, the stopping 
distance shall be as specified in column 2 of Table 4. Note that if the 
power assistance may be activated by more than one control, the above 
performance shall be achieved when each control is actuated separately.

Tables and Figures to Sec.  571.122

                         Table 1--Test Sequence
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Test order                            Paragraph
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Dry stop--single brake control actuated................         S6.3
2. Dry stop--all service brake controls actuated..........         S6.4
3. High speed.............................................         S6.5
4. Wet brake..............................................         S6.6
5. If fitted:
  6.1. Parking brake system...............................         S6.8
  6.2. ABS................................................         S6.9
  6.3. Partial failure, for split service brake systems...         S6.10
  6.4. Power-assisted braking system failure..............         S6.11
6. Heat fade..............................................         S6.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 2--Performance Requirements, Dry Stop Test--Single Brake Control
                                Actuated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Column 1                             Column 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Stopping Distance(s) (where V is the
                                   specified test speed in km/h and S is
       Motorcycle category           the required stopping distance in
                                                  meters)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Single brake system, front wheel(s) braking only
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-1..............................  S <= 0.1 V + 0.0111 V \2\.
3-2..............................  S <= 0.1 V + 0.0143 V \2\.
3-3..............................  S <= 0.1 V + 0.0087 V \2\.
3-4..............................  S <= 0.1 V + 0.0105 V \2\.
3-5..............................  Not applicable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Single brake system, rear wheel(s) braking only
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-1..............................  S <= 0.1 V + 0.0143 V \2\.
3-2..............................  S <= 0.1 V + 0.0143 V \2\.
3-3..............................  S <= 0.1 V + 0.0133 V \2\.
3-4..............................  S <= 0.1 V + 0.0105 V \2\.
3-5..............................  Not applicable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Vehicles with CBS or split service brake systems: For laden and lightly
                            loaded conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-1 and 3-2......................  S <= 0.1 V + 0.0087 V \2\.
3-3..............................  S <= 0.1 V + 0.0076 V \2\.
3-4..............................  S <= 0.1 V + 0.0071 V \2\.
3-5..............................  S <= 0.1 V + 0.0077 V \2\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Vehicles with CBS--secondary service brake system
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL..............................  S <= 0.1 V + 0.0154 V \2\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                           Table 3--ABS Tests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         ABS Tests                            Paragraph
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Stops on a high friction surface--as specified in              S6.9.3
 S6.1.1.1..................................................
b. Stops on a low friction surface--as specified in               S6.9.4
 S6.1.1.2..................................................
c. Wheel lock checks on high and low friction surfaces.....       S6.9.5
d. Wheel lock check--high to low friction surface                 S6.9.6
 transition................................................
e. Wheel lock check--low to high friction surface                 S6.9.7
 transition................................................
f. Stops with an ABS electrical failure....................       S6.9.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 4--Performance Requirements, Power-Assisted Braking System Failure
                                  Test
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Column 1                             Column 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Stopping Distance(s) (where V is the
                                     specified test speed in km/h and S
         Vehicle category           is the required stopping distance in
                                                   meters)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Single brake system
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-1...............................  S <= 0.1 V + 0.0143 V \2\.
3-2...............................  S <= 0.1 V + 0.0143 V \2\.
3-3...............................  S <= 0.1 V + 0.0133 V \2\.
3-4...............................  S <= 0.1 V + 0.0105 V \2\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Vehicles with CBS or split service brake systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All...............................  S <= 0.1 V + 0.0154 V \2\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE P

[[Page 51679]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24AU12.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24AU12.001


[[Page 51680]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24AU12.002


    Issued on: August 14, 2012.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-20480 Filed 8-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE C