[Federal Register: September 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 181)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 54019-54047]
[DOCID:fr17se08-47]

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

Part IV

Department of Transportation

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

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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

49 CFR Part 571

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0150]
RIN 2127-AK16

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Motorcycle Brake Systems

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the Federal motor vehicle safety
standard on motorcycle brake systems, in order to add and update
requirements and test procedures and to harmonize with a global
technical regulation for motorcycle brakes. If adopted, today's
proposal would specify an additional dry brake test procedure to test
each service brake control individually and with the motorcycle in the
fully loaded condition, provide a new test procedure for assessing
performance of motorcycle brakes from high speeds, provide a new wet
brake test that better simulates in-service conditions, provide an
improved test procedure for evaluating heat fade, add test procedures
and performance requirements for antilock brake systems, if fitted, and
add a power-assisted braking system failure test, if equipped.

DATES: Comment closing date: You should submit your comments early
enough to ensure that Document Management receives them not later than
November 17, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the docket number in
the heading of this document, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the discussion of the Privacy Act
below. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation
heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document.
    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 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://
DocketInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical issues: Mr. George Soodoo, Division Chief, Vehicle
Dynamics (NVS-122), Office of Crash Avoidance Standards (E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (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 (E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(Telephone:
(202) 366-0846) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    For legal issues: Ms. Sarah Alves, Office of the Chief Counsel
(NCC-112) (E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>)
(Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    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
III. Current Requirements of FMVSS No. 122
IV. Harmonization Efforts
V. Proposed Improvements to FMVSS No. 122
    A. General
    1. New Terminology
    a. Motorcycle Categories
    b. Measurement of Deceleration and Stopping Distance
    2. Motorcycle Test Speed and Corrected Stopping Distance
    3. Test Method To Measure Peak Braking Coefficient
    4. Test Sequence
    5. Brake Application Force Measurement
    6. Brake Temperature Measurement
    7. Burnishing Procedure
    8. Notice of Wear
    B. Specific Performance Tests
    1. Dry Stop Test--Single Brake Control Actuated
    2. Dry Stop Test--All Service Brake Controls Actuated
    3. High-Speed Test
    4. Wet Brake Test
    5. Heat Fade Test
    6. Parking Brake System Test
    7. Antilock Brake System (ABS) Performance Test
    a. ABS Performance Test--Stopping Performance Requirement
    b. ABS Performance Test--Low-Friction to High-Friction Surface
Transition Stop
    8. Partial Failure Test--Split Service Brake System
    9. Power-Assisted Braking System Failure Test
    C. Summary of Improvements
VI. Costs, Benefits, and the Proposed Compliance Date
VII. Differences Between the GTR and the NPRM
VIII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
IX. Public Participation

I. Executive Summary

    Currently, motorcycle brake systems must comply with a series of
performance requirements established in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 122, Motorcycle Brake Systems, in the early 1970s.
While the 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
document proposes to update FMVSS No. 122 based on the Motorcycle Brake
Systems Global Technical Regulation (GTR), which reflects the
capabilities of current 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. While there is not necessarily any
quantifiable safety benefit for this proposal since virtually all
motorcycles sold in the U.S. can currently meet the proposed
requirements, the agency is planning on taking several other actions to
decrease motorcycle fatalities.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See U.S. Department of Transportation, ``Action Plan to
Reduce Motorcycle Fatalities,'' at 8 (October 2007), available at
http://www.nhtsa.gov/motorcycles/index.cfm (hereinafter ``Action
Plan to Reduce Motorcycle Fatalities''); National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), ``2006 Motorcycle Safety Program
Plan,'' at 26 (2006), available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/
nhtsa/menuitem.d7975d55e8abbe089ca8e410dba046a0/ (hereinafter ``2006
Motorcycle Safety Program Plan'').

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

    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).\2\ 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 the 1998 Agreement. We
believe that the provisions of the GTR would improve the current
requirements and test procedures of FMVSS No. 122 by updating them to
more closely reflect the capabilities of modern technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
Agreement to initiate the process for adopting the provisions of the
GTR.\3\ This proposal is based on the Motorcycle Brake Systems GTR. If
NHTSA decides to adopt amendments to FMVSS No. 122 that differ from the
requirements of the GTR, the agency will first seek to amend the GTR by
submitting a formal proposal to the Executive Committee of the 1998
Agreement, in accordance with the Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal, if made final, would improve the current FMVSS No.
122 requirements in several areas. First, it would 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 proposal would establish a more stringent high
speed test requirement by specifying a slightly higher rate of
deceleration. Third, the proposal would replace 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 proposal would specify an improved
heat fade test procedure based on European and Japanese national
regulations, which share the same test procedure and performance
requirements. Fifth, the proposal would specify performance
requirements for antilock brake systems, if present. Finally, the
proposal would establish 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.
    Besides updating requirements and test procedures to help ensure
the safety of motorcycle brake systems, the proposal 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 would be more economically
efficient to have manufacturers using the same test procedures and
meeting the same performance requirements worldwide. This proposal
would help achieve these benefits and thus reduce the amount of
resources utilized to test motorcycles. Moreover, this GTR sets the
stage for further cooperative efforts with other countries facing
similar problems at the same or even greater exposure rates, learning
from their experience, and leveraging resources to jointly research and
implement more effective vehicle related interventions.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Action Plan to Reduce Motorcycle Fatalities,'' supra note
1, at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although this proposal would add and update FMVSS No. 122
performance requirements and provide benefits from harmonization, we
anticipate that virtually all motorcycles sold in the U.S. can meet the
requirements as proposed. The proposal 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.
    Given the sources and magnitude of the overall safety problem posed
by increased motorcycle fatalities, the agency intends to address the
problem of motorcycle safety comprehensively, focusing on regulatory as
well as behavioral countermeasure strategies. In October 2007, the
Secretary of Transportation announced the Action Plan to Reduce
Motorcycle Fatalities which will help reduce motorcycle fatalities with
new national safety and training standards, curb the use of counterfeit
helmet labelling, place a new focus on motorcycle-specific road
improvements, provide training for law enforcement officers on how to
spot unsafe motorcyclists, and create a broad public awareness campaign
on rider safety. Id. at 1.

II. Background

    FMVSS No. 122, Motorcycle brake systems, (49 CFR 571.122) took
effect on January 1, 1974 (37 FR 1973, June 16, 1972). 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.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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) (39 FR 32914,
Sept. 12, 1974). 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 (43 FR 46547, Oct. 10, 1978).
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 (66 FR 42613,
Aug. 14, 2001). Except for the above changes, FMVSS No. 122 has not
been amended to keep pace with the advancement of modern brake
technologies.

 III. 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 master cylinder, 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 \6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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
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.

IV. 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. During the 126th session of WP.29 of
March 2002, the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement adopted a
Program of Work, which included the development of a GTR on motorcycle
brake systems. Subsequently, Canada offered to sponsor the GTR on
motorcycle braking requirements at the 52nd session of the Working
Party for Brakes and Running Gear (GRRF), in September 2002.\7\ To

proceed with the development of the GTR, the Executive Committee
endorsed Canada's request to establish and chair an informal group on
motorcycle brakes, at the 130th session of WP.29 in June 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Working Party for Brakes and Running Gear (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 GRRF meetings, and
will be available in the docket. 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. These studies completed
by the U.S., Canada, and the industry provided the basis for the
development of the technical requirements of the GTR.
    The following regulations, directives and international voluntary
standards were considered and used as the basis for the development of
the GTR:
     UNECE Regulation No. 78--Uniform provisions concerning the
approval of vehicles of category L with regard to braking.
     FMVSS No.122, Motorcycle brake systems.
     Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Regulation No. 122--Motorcycle
brake systems. (CMVSS No. 122).

    Note: FMVSS and CMVSS No. 122 are substantially similar.

     Japan Safety Standard JSS12-61.
     Australian Design Rule 33/00--Brake systems for
motorcycles and mopeds.
     International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
8710:1995, Motorcycles--Brakes and braking devices--tests and
measurement methods.
     ISO 12364:2001, Two-wheeled motorcycles--Antilock braking
systems (ABS)--tests and measurement methods.
     ISO 12366:2001, Two-wheeled mopeds--Antilock braking
systems (ABS)--tests and measurement methods.
    The informal group used the feedback from the GRRF presentations to
assist with the completion of the proposed GTR, a copy of which is
being placed in the docket.\8\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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. Both
documents will be available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\9\ In the U.S., NHTSA published notice of its intent to add
motorcycle brake systems to its list of recommendations of standards
for consideration as a GTR in January 2001 (66 FR 4893, Jan. 18, 2001;
Docket No. NHTSA-00-7538). The agency later published notice that
Canada had submitted a proposal for the establishment of a motorcycle
brakes GTR, and sought public comment on the formal proposal (69 FR
60460, Oct. 8, 2004; Docket No. NHTSA-03-14395). In October 2006, NHTSA
published a further update on the status of the proposed motorcycle
brake systems GTR, and requested comments specific to the motorcycle
brakes GTR and NHTSA's intent to vote positively on behalf of the
United States for its establishment (71 FR 59582, Oct. 10, 2006; Docket
No. NHTSA-2003-14395). The agency did not receive comments in response
to any of these notices regarding the motorcycle brake systems GTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29grrf/
grrf-infmotobrake7.html for a record of all GRRF meetings and
documents presented therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Proposed Improvements to FMVSS No. 122

A. General

1. New Terminology
    For this proposal, definitions in FMVSS No. 122 (paragraph S4) were
revised or added where necessary, such as new proposed terms used to
describe antilock brake systems (ABS), vehicle maximum speed (Vmax),
and peak braking coefficient (PBC). Additionally, in order to
streamline the proposed regulatory text to more closely reflect the GTR
text, some of the new proposed terms are 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)'' \10\ (UN Doc. S.R.1) developed for the purposes of
the GTRs. Thus, certain new definitions that may

be similar to existing 49 CFR Part 571 definitions are proposed to be
added to Sec.  571.122 S4, 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.'' \11\
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.\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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.
    \11\ 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.''
    \12\ 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 divides 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.\13\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
2. Vehicle Test Speed and Corrected Stopping Distance
    Deceleration or stopping distance performance requirements are set
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 specifies Japan's existing general tolerance of
5 km/h in S6.1.4.
    A method for correcting the measured stopping distance is specified
in JSS 12-61 to compensate for the difference between the specified
test speed and the actual speed where the brakes were applied. Although
not specified directly in the regulations, the current FMVSS No. 122
and CMVSS No. 122 also apply a correction factor to test data, using
the method specified in Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard
J299, Stopping Distance Test Procedure. The informal group evaluated
the above noted stopping distance correction methods and the one
specified in ISO 8710:1995, Motorcycles--Brakes and braking devices--
tests and measurement methods.
    SAE J299 offers the most basic method for estimating the corrected
distance, and the method is applicable to a speed tolerance of  3.2 km/h ( 2 mph). The ISO 8710 and JSS 12-61
methods are based on the same principles, but also take into
consideration the brake system reaction time. These methods are
applicable to a wider speed tolerance of  5 km/h. However,
a small error in handling the system reaction time is apparent in the
ISO 8710 equation, which results in higher than expected corrected
values. Based on this analysis, the informal group agreed that the
stopping distance correction method specified in JSS 12-61 was the most
appropriate for the GTR. Therefore, as with the existing Japanese
standard, the specified test speeds in the GTR include a general
tolerance of  5 km/h (S6.1.4), using the JSS stopping
distance correction method to normalize the measured test results, if
necessary, to compensate for the difference between the specified test
speed and the actual speed where the brakes were applied (see
S5.3.2(b)).
3. Test Method To Measure 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.'' For reasons of objectivity, we are
specifying in the proposed rule a PBC equal to 0.9 for the high-
friction dry test surface used for the motorcycle brake system tests.
NHTSA has discussed the issues surrounding objective measurement of
PBC/PFC at length in an early-1990s rulemaking that added ABS
requirements for medium and heavy vehicles (see e.g., 60 FR 13216, Mar.
10, 1995; Docket Nos. 92-29, 93-69).
    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, 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 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.
    The UNECE Regulation No. 78 and the JSS 12-61 do not specify the
coefficient of friction for the test surface but prescribe that the
test surface be level, dry, and affording good adhesion. For the ABS
tests where road surface

friction requirements are specified, the UNECE Regulation No. 78 and
JSS 12-61 specify a method that is based on the same principles as
measuring the PBC. This is determined by finding the wheel lock
threshold through a series of braking tests with the ABS disabled for
the individual motorcycle being evaluated, and uses the tires on the
motorcycle compared with the ASTM Method, which uses a reference test
(control) tire on a skid trailer.
    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 proposes 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).
    As mentioned above, the GTR also 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. Because of objectivity concerns, we are
proposing a PBC of 0.9 as opposed to a nominal PBC of 0.9 (the default
option in the GTR).
4. Test Sequence
    We are proposing 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 purpose
here is to minimize the variability of test results through consistency
in both the condition of the brakes throughout the tests and in the way
in which the brakes are evaluated. There is no specified test order in
the UNECE Regulation No. 78. Similarly, JSS 12-61 indicates that tests
can be done in any order, with the exception that the fade test be
conducted last.
    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, which is consistent with the existing practice in
JSS 12-61.
    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 performance tests, followed by the wet brake
performance test.
    Consistent with the GTR, we are proposing a specified test sequence
as follows:
    (1) Dry stop test--single brake control actuated;
    (2) Dry stop test--all service brake controls actuated;
    (3) High speed test;
    (4) Wet brake test;
    (5) If fitted:
    (a) Parking brake system test;
    (b) ABS test;
    (c) Partial failure, for split service brake systems test;
    (d) Power-assisted braking system failure test.
    (6) Heat fade test.
    The informal group that developed the technical specifications for
the GTR assessed alternatives to the testing sequence, including
selecting a test sequence based on the loading of the motorcycle in
order to save time, and relocating the wet brake test to second-last,
before the final fade test. Either option would place the more severe
brake tests earlier in the test sequence, which could affect braking
performance in subsequent tests. The GTR therefore kept the test
sequence as noted above.
5. 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 proposed rule specifies input forces in accordance with
the national regulation on which the individual test is based, to
minimize confusion.
    The respective input forces are noted in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A discussion on brake control actuation force specifications for
evaluating motorcycles equipped with ABS is provided below in paragraph
V.B.7.
    With respect to the location of the input force on the hand-
controlled lever, UNECE Regulation No. 78 and JSS 12-61 place the input
force 50 mm from the end of the lever, while FMVSS No. 122 locates the
input force 30 mm from the end of the handle bar grip. On most models
(but not all), the control lever typically extends slightly beyond the
handle bar grip, such that the control forces are almost at the same
location regardless of the method followed. Depending on the
regulation, however, it is not entirely clear whether this measurement
should be taken along the length of the control lever or parallel to
the handle bar grip; or, how to measure with a curved or angled control
lever. Some interpretation is required.
    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.
This proposed rule adopts the GTR's harmonized specification of input
force.
    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
incorporates these hydraulic service brake system requirements in
S5.1.9.
6. 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 propose to retain the plug-type thermocouples brake
temperature measurement method in FMVSS No. 122.
    Plug-type thermocouples are imbedded in the brake friction material
(brake pad for disc brakes or brake shoes for drum brakes) one
millimeter below the contact surface between the friction material and
the brake disc or brake drum. This placement of the thermocouple allows
no contact with the friction surfaces and provides an accurate reading
of the temperature at the friction material/disc or drum interface.
Rubbing-type thermocouples are placed so that they are in direct
contact with both the friction material and the disc or drum. Although
this type of thermocouple can provide a quicker response to temperature
changes, it has some limitations regarding its durability and its
effectiveness when used on brakes with cross-drilled or grooved discs.
In addition, for a given brake system, the rubbing-type thermocouple
generally provides higher temperature readings compared with the plug-
type thermocouple.
    The two methods of measuring the IBT were included in the GTR and
each Contracting Party may specify which temperature measurement would
be accepted in its national regulation. 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. UNECE Regulation No. 78 and JSS 12-61
also prescribe brake temperature measurement, but neither regulation
makes reference to specific measurement equipment or installation
methods. 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, we believe that the plug-
type thermocouple would be the more effective option for measuring IBT
in the proposed FMVSS No. 122. Therefore, the proposed rule specifies
that initial brake temperature is measured by plug-type thermocouples.
    With respect to the actual brake temperature values specified for
testing purposes, each of the national regulations on which the GTR
performance requirements are based specifies a value for the IBT. For
most tests, the UNECE Regulation No. 78 and JSS 12-61 specify that the
IBT shall be less than or equal to 100 [deg]C (212 [deg]F), whereas
FMVSS No. 122 specifies an IBT between 55 [deg]C and 65 [deg]C (130
[deg]F and 150 [deg]F). In developing the GTR, it was agreed that a
narrow IBT range could improve the repeatability of the performance
tests. However, test data indicated that the narrow range specified by
FMVSS No. 122 might not be achievable for those motorcycles equipped
with a combined brake system. Therefore, the GTR specifies an IBT
between 55 [deg]C and 100 [deg]C in order to encompass all brake
systems, and the proposed rule specifies this same IBT range as a test
condition.
7. Burnishing Procedure
    The current FMVSS No. 122 includes a burnishing procedure. In order
to harmonize with the GTR, we are proposing 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. UNECE Regulation No. 78 and JSS 12-61 do not include any
burnishing procedure. Under the UNECE and the JSS regulations, the
motorcycle is generally presented for type approval compliance testing
in a burnished condition, using a procedure determined by the
motorcycle manufacturer. 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 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).
    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 initial speed proposed for the
procedure has been changed to 50 km/h to round-off the metric
equivalent, which is a slight increase from 30 mph (48 km/h) as
specified by FMVSS No. 122. An initial speed of 0.8 Vmax was adopted
for category 3-1 and 3-2 motorcycles, which have a Vmax of 50 km/h or
less. Instead of making complete stops, the proposal also includes
braking the motorcycle at the specified deceleration down to a speed
between 5 km/h and 10 km/h, after which the motorcycle may be
accelerated to the initial test speed for the next stop in the
burnishing procedure. The primary reason for not braking the motorcycle
to a complete stop is to expedite the burnishing procedure. The
increased motorcycle kinetic energy resulting from the small initial
speed increase of 2 km/h is likely to offset any reduction in kinetic
energy resulting from not braking the motorcycle until a complete stop
is reached. 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 specifies that each brake be burnished for 100 decelerations.
    Finally, the GTR changes the IBT from the range of 55 [deg]C to 65
[deg]C currently specified in FMVSS No. 122 to an IBT less than or
equal to 100 [deg]C. The primary reasons for changing the IBT are to
accommodate the higher operational temperatures of motorcycles equipped
with disc brakes and to reduce the cooling times between stops. In
developing the GTR, it was agreed that although a narrow IBT range is
important to achieve good repeatability of the performance tests, the
IBT range is not as critical for the burnishing procedure.

8. Notice of Wear
    We are proposing 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.'' FMVSS No. 122 S5.2.2, Notice of wear
(proposed). 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.'' FMVSS No. 122
S5.1.5, Other requirements. 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.

B. Specific Performance Tests

1. Dry Stop Test--Single Brake Control Actuated
    The GTR has a provision for a dry stop test with single brake
control that is based on UNECE Regulation No. 78 and JSS 12-61 tests.
Current FMVSS No. 122 does not have a requirement that tests each brake
system separately in a split brake service system, but only a
requirement that tests the front and rear brake simultaneously. In the
main FMVSS No. 122 dry stop test with both brake controls actuated
simultaneously, the test rider judges how to apportion the force
actuated 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 split brake be
tested individually would improve FMVSS No. 122.
    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. Each of the major national motorcycle brake
regulations, UNECE Regulation No. 78, FMVSS No. 122, and JSS 12-61,
includes a dry stop test in its test procedures. The UNECE Regulation
No. 78 and the JSS 12-61 test procedures and performance requirements
are similar. The UNECE Regulation No. 78 and JSS 12-61 regulations
require that the braking performance be evaluated separately for each
brake control, with the motorcycle in the laden condition and at test
speeds of 40 km/h or 60 km/h depending on the motorcycle category. The
only exception is for motorcycle category 3-4, where it is specified
that the brakes at all wheels shall be operated via a single foot
actuated control.
    Current FMVSS No. 122 performance requirements are quite different
as they specify motorcycles be tested in what is effectively the
lightly-loaded condition,\14\ 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. Current FMVSS
No. 122 also specifies test requirements from 30 mph (48.3 km/h), 60
mph (96.6 km/h) and 80 mph (128.8 km/h). Consistent with being tested
in the lightly-loaded condition and with both brakes applied together,
the FMVSS No. 122 deceleration requirements are higher than in the
UNECE Regulation No. 78 and JSS 12-61. The FMVSS No. 122 and the UNECE
Regulation No. 78/JSS 12-61 tests are conducted with the engine
disconnected, which means that only the foundation brake performance is
measured and engine braking is not a factor. Although current FMVSS No.
122 also specifies that independent service brake systems be evaluated
separately, that test is conducted with the brakes in the pre-burnished
condition, hence requiring a lower level of performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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.'' FMVSS No. 122 S4, Definitions
(proposed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In independent studies of the relative severity of the tests as
they apply to category 3-3 motorcycles, the industry concluded that the
UNECE Regulation No. 78/JSS 12-61 test was marginally more stringent,
whereas the NHTSA/Transport Canada findings indicated that the FMVSS
No. 122 test was marginally more stringent.\15\ Despite the difference
in these findings, neither study demonstrated a significant difference
in stringency between these national regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ These studies will be posted in the current docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary advantage of the UNECE Regulation No. 78/JSS 12-61
requirement is that each brake control is tested separately, which
ensures that each independent brake system meets specific performance
criteria. As mentioned above, in the main FMVSS No. 122 dry stop test
with both brake controls actuated simultaneously, the test rider judges
how to apportion the force actuated to the front and rear brakes. This
may give less repeatable test results or allow the test rider to
compensate for a ``weak'' brake. Therefore, consistent with the GTR,
the proposed rule includes the dry stop test with single brake control
based on UNECE Regulation No. 78/JSS 12-61 requirements. Unlike present
UNECE/JSS national standards, the performance requirement can be met
only through measurement of the stopping distance.
2. Dry Stop Test--All Service Brake Controls Actuated
    The GTR contains a provision to test the service brakes with the
brake control applied simultaneously, which is very similar to the
current FMVSS No. 122 dry stop test with both brake controls actuated
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. The current FMVSS No. 122 includes a stopping
distance test from 60 mph (96 km/h) with all brake controls actuated
simultaneously, with the motorcycle in the lightly-loaded condition.
The stopping distance requirement from this speed is 185 feet (56.4
meters), which is equivalent to an average deceleration of 6.4 m/s\2\
over the entire stop. The current requirements of UNECE Regulation No.
78 and JSS 12-61 do not include a performance test from such a speed.
    The GTR performance specifications are based on the FMVSS No. 122
test noted above. 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. Consistent with the GTR,
in the proposed rule this test would apply to motorcycle categories 3-
3, 3-4 and 3-5, but not to motorcycle categories 3-1 and 3-2. The
latter are motorcycles with a maximum speed of less than 50 km/h. Given
this speed restriction, motorcycle categories 3-1 and 3-2 will use a
test speed based on

90 percent of the maximum speed, or almost at the same exact speed as
the 40 km/h test speed for the dry stop test--single brake control
actuated. As the level of stringency was deemed comparable for both dry
stop tests, it was agreed that specifying a dry stop test with all the
service brake controls actuated for motorcycle categories 3-1 and 3-2
would be redundant.
    The brake application force specified in the GTR is less than or
equal to 245 N for hand levers and less than or equal to 400 N for foot
pedals. Since this GTR performance requirement is adopted from FMVSS
No. 122, with a slight increase in speed to 100 km/h from 96 km/h, the
GTR retained the corresponding control lever/pedal force parameters to
maintain the stringency of the original test. If this dry stop test was
adopted with the force parameters from UNECE Regulation No. 78 and JSS
12-61 Standards (200 N/350 N for the hand lever/foot pedal controls,
respectively), it would increase the stringency of the test since it
would effectively be proposing that the current FMVSS No. 122
performance requirements be met with lower application forces.
    The stopping distance performance requirement from a speed of 100
km/h is 198.5 feet (60.5 meters). In keeping with the original
requirements on which this test is based (rounded to 100 km/h), the GTR
maintains the performance requirement for this dry stop test in terms
of stopping distance only.
    The approach for setting forth the performance requirements in
current FMVSS No. 122 is to specify progressively higher performance
requirements at set break points as test speeds decrease, based mainly
on the fact that the PBC increases as the motorcycle speed decreases.
When viewed in the context of FMVSS No. 122, the placement of break
points are provided to accommodate the current FMVSS No. 122 test
requirements from speeds of 30 mph, 60 mph, 80 mph and up to 120 mph.
However, for the purpose of the GTR, it became evident that maintaining
the original FMVSS No. 122 break points would have the unintended
effect of introducing two levels of stringency that are dependent on
the test speed, making it inconsistent with the other dry stop tests in
the GTR--i.e., both the high speed test and the dry stop test single
brake control actuated have constant performance requirements
irrespective of the test speed. For this reason, the GTR contains a
single performance requirement based on the 100 km/h performance
requirement in the current FMVSS No. 122, for all motorcycles to which
this test applies.
3. High-Speed Test
    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. Each of the major national
motorcycle brake regulations, UNECE Regulation No. 78, FMVSS No. 122,
and JSS 12-61, includes a high-speed test in its requirements. The
UNECE Regulation No. 78 and the JSS 12-61 tests are similar and are
performed from a speed of 160 km/h or 0.8 of the vehicle's maximum
speed (Vmax), whichever is less. The UNECE Regulation No. 78 test
requires that motorcycle braking performance and behavior be recorded;
however, it does not have specific performance requirements. The
performance required by JSS 12-61 includes achieving a mean fully
developed deceleration (MFDD) of at least 5.8 m/s\2\ or coming to a
stop prior to the equivalent braking distance. The high-speed
effectiveness test of FMVSS No. 122 is conducted from a test speed that
is based on the speed capability of the motorcycle, not exceeding 193.2
km/h (120 mph). When tested at the maximum speed of 120 mph, the
required stopping distance is 861 feet (262.5 meters), equivalent to an
average deceleration of 5.5 m/s\2\. Based on these figures, the FMVSS
No. 122 test appears to be more stringent due to the higher test speed,
whereas the JSS 12-61 appears to be more stringent based on a
deceleration requirement.
    The test conditions for current FMVSS No. 122 and the UNECE
Regulation No. 78/JSS 12-61 high speed tests are quite similar,
including the motorcycle test mass and the simultaneous application of
both brakes. The main difference between test parameters, besides the
difference in the motorcycle test speeds, is that the FMVSS No. 122
test is conducted with the engine disconnected (clutch disengaged),
whereas the UNECE Regulation No. 78/JSS 12-61 test is conducted with
the engine connected (clutch engaged). With a connected engine, the
subsequent engine braking can assist in the deceleration of the
motorcycle. This effect is reduced to a minimum by placing the
transmission in the highest gear during the braking maneuver. The
benefit of having the engine connected is the effect of stabilizing the
motorcycle while braking from such a high speed.
    Based on the NHTSA/Transport Canada Review of Motorcycle Brake
Standards,\16\ 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 rider is exposed. The GTR limits the
test speed to 160 km/h to address test facility limitations and safety
concerns. The FMVSS No. 122 and JSS 12-61 performance requirements are
very similar from a maximum speed of 160 km/h. The equivalent average
deceleration in FMVSS No. 122 is 5.5 m/s\2\ from 100 mph, compared to
the JSS 12-61 MFDD of 5.8 m/s\2\ from 160 km/h. In actual testing, the
performance differences for the high-speed tests were too small to
clearly identify one testing procedure as being more stringent than the
other. The GTR also specifies that the high speed test be conducted
with the motorcycle engine connected and the transmission in the
highest gear, per JSS 12-61, which has the effect of enhancing
motorcycle stability during braking from test speeds of 160 km/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ This study will be posted in the current docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Wet Brake Test
    The proposed wet brake test provision 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
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. Each of the major national motorcycle brake regulations,
UNECE Regulation No. 78, FMVSS No. 122, and JSS 12-61, includes a wet
brake test, but different philosophies are found in them. The UNECE
Regulation No. 78 and the JSS 12-61 test procedures and performance
requirements are similar, but are different from the FMVSS No. 122
test. UNECE Regulation No. 78 was developed 20 years ago in the United
Kingdom to deal with problems in the field where the braking
performance of motorcycles with exposed disc brakes was significantly
reduced when ridden in heavy rain. This coincided with the large scale
introduction of disc brakes on motorcycles. Therefore, in order to
simulate heavy rain conditions, the UNECE Regulation No. 78 test
requires a brake performance test with a wetted brake. This is achieved
by spraying

water directly onto the brakes during the test. The UNECE Regulation
No. 78 wet brake performance evaluation 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.
    As with the UNECE Regulation No. 78/JSS 12-61 requirement, the
current FMVSS No. 122 specifies an evaluation of wet brake performance
by comparison of a baseline dry stop test result with performance after
wetting. However, the philosophy behind the test is quite different, as
the test is based on brake performance recovery following the
motorcycle crossing an area of standing water. As such, the wetting
procedure consists of immersing the front and rear brakes in water,
separately, for two minutes each. Performance is evaluated with all
brakes applied simultaneously and the wet brake recovery performance is
based on the fifth stop after having immersed the brakes. The
motorcycle is also tested in the lightly-loaded condition. Practical
problems can occur when carrying out the brake immersion, due to low
exhaust systems and other mechanical system locations, which may affect
the motorcycle engine or transmission.
    The respective brake regulations address minimum performance
requirements for wet brakes, albeit under different conditions. In
terms of the overall performance requirements, the stringency
comparison studies by NHTSA/Transport Canada and the industry both
concluded that the UNECE Regulation No. 78 /JSS 12-61 performance
requirements are more stringent. During development of the GTR, it was
agreed that the UNECE Regulation No. 78/JSS 12-61 procedure akin to
braking while riding in the rain is a more common operating condition
than crossing an area covered with water. Therefore, consistent with
the GTR, the proposed wet brake test is based on the contents of the
UNECE Regulation No. 78/JSS 12-61 test, and is applicable to all
motorcycle categories. At present, the UNECE Regulation No. 78/JSS 12-
61 procedure excludes brakes that are fully enclosed because water is
prevented from reaching the braking surface. For the purposes of the
GTR, however, there was general agreement that the scope be expanded to
include testing of enclosed disc brakes or drum brakes that have
ventilation or inspection holes, as these include potential entry
points for water spray.
5. Heat Fade Test
    We propose to change the current FMVSS No. 122 heat fade test to
the GTR heat fade test provision, which is based on the UNECE
Regulation No. 78 and JSS 12-61 fade test, because the results from
both stringency studies indicated that the latter 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. Each of the current
national regulations includes a test to evaluate the brake for heat
fade and any change in brake performance.
    As with the wet brake test, the UNECE Regulation No. 78 and JSS 12-
61 share the same test procedure and performance requirements. Each
requires that the brakes be tested separately, with the motorcycle
loaded to its maximum mass capacity. The FMVSS No. 122 test parameters
are different in that all brakes are applied simultaneously and the
motorcycle test mass is set at 200 pounds (90.7 kg) above the unloaded
motorcycle mass (the 200 pounds includes the mass of the test rider and
test equipment).
    Each 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
similarities between national regulations end here. In the UNECE
Regulation No. 78/JSS 12-61, the final performance test occurs with one
stop immediately following the 10 fade stops. FMVSS No. 122 specifies
an additional five recovery stops, and the performance in the fifth
stop is compared to the baseline performance. The respective regulation
test parameters include additional differences such as initial test
speeds, brake lever and pedal control forces, deceleration rates, and
the transmission gear selection (engine connected/disconnected).
Finally, to evaluate brake fade performance, the FMVSS No. 122
procedure compares the brake pedal and lever actuation forces necessary
to maintain the same deceleration as in the baseline test, whereas the
UNECE Regulation No. 78/JSS 12-61 procedures compare deceleration (or
stopping distance) for the same brake pedal and lever actuation forces
as used in the baseline test.
    Although the national regulations have distinct differences, they
share the common goal of evaluating the effect of heat on braking
performance. The stringency of the respective tests was evaluated
separately by the joint NHTSA and Transport Canada study, and by the
industry. The results from both studies indicated that the UNECE
Regulation No. 78/JSS 12-61 fade test was more stringent, thus
providing the basis for the testing specifications of the GTR.
    Minor adjustments were made to the referenced national test
procedure. In addition to the IBT adjustment, the text 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 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 meet the deceleration
rate for the dry stop test--single brake control actuated, as noted in
Table 2.
    The proposed fade test is applicable to motorcycle categories 3-3,
3-4 and 3-5, as is presently the case in the UNECE Regulation No. 78/
JSS 12-61 and FMVSS No. 122. Only Canada's national regulation, CMVSS
No. 122, includes a fade test requirement for motorcycles with an
engine size less than 50 cc and a top speed less than 50 km/h (i.e.,
motorcycle categories 3-1 and 3-2). However, during development of the
GTR, none of the participants in the informal group could substantiate
the need to include the fade test for those motorcycle categories.
There was no negative experience reported due to the absence of a fade
test for these smaller motorcycles, and therefore the GTR does not
specify the heat fade test for such motorcycles.
6. Parking Brake System Test
    The proposed parking brake test would 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.
    The current FMVSS No. 122 specifies that the parking brake system
be capable of holding the motorcycle stationary for five minutes when
tested in the lightly-loaded condition on a 30 percent grade, in both
the forward and reverse directions (to the limit of traction of the
braked wheels). In addition, FMVSS No. 122 requires that the parking
brake be of a friction type with solely mechanical means to retain
engagement. The parking brake requirements in UNECE Regulation No. 78/
JSS 12-61 are equivalent and require that the brake must be capable of
holding the motorcycle stationary on an 18 percent grade in the laden
condition (i.e., the maximum weight limit specified by the
manufacturer), in both the forward and reverse directions. No time
limit is specified in either the UNECE or JSS regulation.
    The GTR uses the UNECE Regulation No. 78/JSS 12-61 parking brake
test. The level of stringency appears to be similar to that in FMVSS
No. 122, given the UNECE Regulation No. 78's laden condition on an 18
percent grade versus the FMVSS No. 122's lightly-loaded condition on a
30 percent grade. During development of the GTR, however, it was agreed
that the laden condition is the worse case loading condition and test
facilities around the world are more likely to have an 18 percent grade
than a 30 percent grade available for testing.
    Consistent with the GTR, the proposed parking brake test includes a
performance requirement that the motorcycle remain stationary for five
minutes, which is present in current FMVSS No. 122. In addition, the
GTR retains the common requirement that the parking brake system be
designed to retain engagement solely by mechanical means, but not
include the current FMVSS No. 122 requirement that the parking brake be
of a friction type. This removes a design restriction and allows a
manufacturer to use any parking brake system design that retains
engagement by mechanical means.
7. Antilock Brake System (ABS) Performance Test
    The current FMVSS No. 122 does not have any requirements for ABS
performance. The proposed rule does not require ABS but does contain
ABS performance requirements when such brake systems are present, to
ensure minimum ABS performance in motorcycles that are so equipped. The
purpose of the specified ABS test procedures is to assess the stability
and stopping performance of a motorcycle with the ABS functioning.
    UNECE Regulation No. 78 and JSS 12-61 include ABS-specific
performance requirements but do not require that ABS be fitted on
motorcycles. Common to both national regulations are wheel lock tests
on high-friction and low-friction surfaces and an ABS failed systems
performance test. In addition, the UNECE Regulation No. 78 performance
requirements include an ABS adhesion utilization (i.e., efficiency)
test on high-friction and low-friction surfaces, a high-friction
surface to low-friction surface transition stop and a low-friction
surface to high-friction surface transition stop. As mentioned above,
current FMVSS No. 122 does not include any ABS-specific performance
requirements.
    The agency believes that the ABS definition developed for the GTR
to upgrade FMVSS No. 122 is not as comprehensive as the ABS definition
the agency uses in 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. However, we
believe both definitions can be interpreted to mean the same thing. 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.
     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 agency seeks comment on the proposed GTR definition and on the
ABS definition used in the other braking standards.
    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.\17\ With
the exception of the ABS adhesion utilization test and the low-friction
surface to high-friction surface transition stop, the Contracting
Parties agreed to adopt, with selected revisions and clarifications,
the remaining ABS test procedures and performance requirements.
Possible alternatives for those tests on which agreement was not
achieved are discussed further below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ ABS performance test reviews used in the drafting of GTR
provisions will be posted in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of the wheel lock test on a low-friction surface, the
present UNECE Regulation No. 78 states that for a road surface with a
PBC less than or equal to 0.45, the specified initial test speed of 80
km/h may be reduced for safety reasons, but does not specify by how
much. In order to ensure consistency in the way the motorcycles are
evaluated and to achieve the objective of rider safety, the GTR and
proposed rule specify that the test speed is the lesser of 0.8 Vmax or
60 km/h for the low-friction surface test.
    With regard to the low-friction to high-friction surface transition
test, it was initially suggested that the motorcycle be evaluated while
crossing from a wetted low-friction surface to a wetted high-friction
surface (with a PBC exceeding 0.8). There was no reported issue in
obtaining a wetted surface with a PBC exceeding 0.8 during the ABS
validation tests. However, it was noted that there might be a problem
in obtaining such a PBC on a wetted surface, and therefore the GTR
removed all references to a wetted surface.
    Finally, when evaluating the performance of the ABS, the GTR
specifies that the ABS be cycling throughout the respective tests. This
means that the ABS is repeatedly modulating the brake force to prevent
the directly controlled wheels from locking. Depending on the system,
some brake feedback may be felt through the brake control, such that it
is not possible to maintain the specified control force. Data obtained
during the ABS validation tests revealed challenges while trying to
maintain a consistent maximum brake control force, within the 20
percent range as initially proposed. Also, of the motorcycles tested,
all ABS systems cycled at brake control actuation forces well below the
proposed maximum limits.
    The GTR specifies that the test rider apply sufficient force to
ensure that the ABS is fully cycling throughout the test. Two
methodologies were considered to accomplish this result. The first was
based on the tests in UNECE Regulation

No. 78, in which minimum brake control actuation forces are specified,
with the caveat that a higher force may be used if necessary to
activate the ABS. In this case, it was agreed that stipulating minimum
brake actuation forces was unnecessary; therefore the first method
considered was simply to apply the necessary brake actuation force to
activate the ABS. The second method considered specified maximum brake
control actuation forces that cannot be exceeded. Unlike the first
method, the second method was designed to ensure that all riders would
have the benefit of the operation of ABS at or below specified maximum
brake actuation forces, under the specified test conditions, and to
facilitate verification testing. However, some cautioned that the
latter method would also restrict design, which is not a desirable
condition.
    Although the validation testing did provide important information
toward setting maximum brake control actuation forces, there was
concern that too few motorcycles were tested to allow setting fixed
limits. Therefore, the GTR specifies the first method noted above.
a. ABS Performance Test--Stopping Performance Requirement
    An adhesion utilization test is included in the UNECE regulation
only, and compares the separate performance of the front and rear ABS
brakes to the separate maximum braking performance of the front and
rear brakes with the ABS disabled. It is evaluated on two road
surfaces, a high-friction surface and a low-friction surface.
    Several discussions were held on the issues of test repeatability
and variability of the results. The UNECE Regulation No. 78 test has a
potential for producing less repeatable results because it is a test of
the maximum motorcycle braking performance as achieved by the rider of
the motorcycle. Numerous factors come into play when attempting to
achieve maximum performance, including rider skill, the condition of
the test equipment and site (tires, brakes and track surface), and the
weather conditions. For example, the performance of ABS may be
favorable when tested by a poorly performing rider; however, the
efficiency of ABS can diminish significantly when tested by an expert
rider.
    In conducting such tests, some ABS efficiency results were noted to
exceed 100 percent (i.e., improved deceleration compared to non-ABS
braking performance), which can occur when the test rider is not able
to achieve the maximum available deceleration rate. In addition to
rider influence, we believe that the UNECE Regulation No. 78 procedure
is flawed in that it prescribes a constant control force for the entire
stop. The available surface friction (i.e., peak braking coefficient,
or PBC) increases as the motorcycle speed decreases, and thus the ABS
system will have the advantage of higher deceleration rates at lower
speeds. Therefore, to obtain the maximum deceleration capability
without ABS, it is expected that the rider would have to increase the
braking control force as the motorcycle is being decelerated.
    Safety and logistical issues were also noted with the UNECE
Regulation No. 78 adhesion utilization test:
     Rider safety. The test requires that the rider achieve an
impending locked-wheel braking condition with the ABS disabled, to
obtain maximum deceleration data with which to evaluate ABS in later
tests. This impending locked-wheel braking condition is at the
beginning of loss-of-control of the motorcycle, which could result in a
crash. Even with protective outriggers in place, it is a hazardous
condition that is asked of the test rider.
     Logistical. The test requires modifying the brake system
to disable the ABS. This may not be a simple task, or may not be
possible depending on the complexity of the motorcycle brake system.
Furthermore, the standard requires that maximum deceleration be
recorded with an altered brake system (i.e., with disabled ABS), hence
possibly outside the manufacturer's design parameters.
    In light of these issues, alternate ABS tests were developed at the
fourth informal group meeting in June 2005, based on the UNECE
Regulation No. 78. The tests developed consisted of braking on both
high- and low-friction surfaces with ABS cycling, but with emphasis
placed on maintaining motorcycle stability rather than actual stopping
performance. Nevertheless, the tests also specified stopping
performance for the high-friction surface test only, based on the
minimum performance requirements of the general UNECE Regulation No. 78
dry stop test. The developed tests did not specify a stopping distance
performance requirement for the low-friction surface test, as there was
no baseline test in UNECE Regulation No. 78 with which to compare it.
The tests neither required the brake system to be altered, nor the
rider to attempt to obtain the maximum attainable deceleration rate,
thereby addressing the safety and logistical issues.
    This alternate test was presented at the 58th GRRF in September
2005. While there was no issue raised with regard to the test
procedure, the relative stringency of the stopping performance
requirements was thought to be too low compared to the existing UNECE
Regulation No. 78 ABS requirement, which could result in unnecessarily
long stopping distances when ABS is cycling.
    The ABS test agreed on for the GTR and proposed here is conducted
with all service brake controls actuated simultaneously, whereby brake
and stability performance requirements are measured on low- and high-
friction surfaces. The benefits of testing all service brake controls
simultaneously include being able to compare the motorcycle ABS
deceleration performance to the available PBC, without modification of
the brake system and without rider influence.
    The brake performance requirement is based on the UNECE Regulation
No. 78 requirement that braking with the ABS cycling shall meet at
least 70 percent of the maximum braking performance without ABS.
Regarding stability during the ABS tests, the proposal defines wheel
lock as the condition where the wheel attains 100 percent slip, and
states in several of the performance requirements of the ABS tests that
there must be no wheel lock. We are aware that momentary wheel lock at
100 percent slip may occur during normal cycling of the ABS but note
that it is difficult to establish a proposed time frame for such
momentary lock-up duration. As a result, for the ABS tests, 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.
    Unlike the high-friction surface where measurement of PBC yields
consistent results, PBC values can vary on the same low-friction,
wetted surface. Given this characteristic, a range of PBC values is
necessary for the low-friction ABS tests. Following the ABS validation
tests, the proposed specification of a PBC range from 0.3 to 0.45 on a
low-friction surface was revised as none of the track surfaces on which
the motorcycles were tested fell in this range. The GTR specifies that
the track surface have a PBC less than or equal to 0.45, and that the
performance requirement is based on 70 percent of the track surface PBC
at the time of testing. This is a more stringent requirement than
previously considered in the development of the GTR's ABS tests,
whereby the performance requirement was based on a PBC of 0.3, even
though the motorcycle could be tested on a surface with a PBC of 0.45.

    Braking performance in terms of stopping distance and deceleration
for individually braked wheels was also considered. Maximum braking
performance at each wheel is significantly affected by the motorcycle
design. For example, different braking effectiveness is available
through the rear wheel of a sport motorcycle compared to that of a
cruiser motorcycle. Therefore, it is not possible to set constant
maximum stopping distance or deceleration performance requirements for
each wheel individually, for all motorcycle types. Given this, and that
individual wheel braking performance is already covered in the dry stop
test--single brake control actuated test, further testing for
individually braked wheels is not considered necessary. In the event of
a motorcycle with ABS installed on only one wheel, the test rider can
still apply all service brake systems simultaneously as specified to
meet the stability and stopping performance requirements.
b. ABS Performance Test--Low-Friction to High-Friction Surface
Transition Stop
    This is an existing test in UNECE Regulation No. 78, with the
performance requirement that the motorcycle does not deviate from its
initial course and that its deceleration shall rise to an
``appropriate'' value in a ``reasonable'' time. To make the test more
objective, actual performance values were incorporated in the GTR test
to define what is appropriate and reasonable.
    At the fifth informal meeting in October 2005, Japan presented some
preliminary test data that revealed a wide range of ABS performance
responses to the sudden change in surface friction. Thus, at that time,
it was not possible to determine a specific value that would be
required to improve the objectivity of the UNECE test. The subsequent
ABS validation tests provided additional insight in this regard, with a
view to establishing specific performance requirements. In all cases, a
rise in deceleration could be observed in a graphical depiction of the
motorcycle deceleration over time, to various degrees. Regarding the
response time to the change in surfaces, the actual test surfaces and
the methods used to calculate the time interval varied sufficiently to
make it difficult to define a time limit on the basis of the testing so
far. Based on this data, the GTR introduced a limit of 1.0 seconds in
order to match the current UNECE requirement that the deceleration
should rise in a ``reasonable time,'' although there was very limited,
confirmed technical support for such a figure. It was also agreed that
when more data becomes available, these specifications could be
reconsidered.
    Setting a minimum performance requirement to account for a rise in
deceleration proved more difficult. Different criteria were applied to
establish a method to objectively quantify changes in the deceleration
rates before and after the transition point. Although each criterion
yielded a rise in deceleration, the magnitude of the rise in the
deceleration varied over time. This variation is related to the
operating characteristics of the ABS as it cycles the brakes, which
causes the motorcycle to slow at different deceleration rates
throughout the stop. For the same motorcycle, ABS cycling can change
depending on various factors including the available traction at that
time, as interpreted by the hardware and software that comprises the
ABS system. These provide sinusoidal-like deceleration signatures,
before and after the transition point. As such, there is no a clear
point where the deceleration can be shown to have increased. Rather, a
segment of the deceleration data shall be analyzed, before and after
the transition point, from which trends can be established to compare
deceleration rates.
    In view of these findings, validation testing has demonstrated a
need for further data analysis and possibly the testing of a larger
sample of motorcycles to propose performance limits in terms of a
minimum deceleration rate. In terms of quantifying a minimum rise in
deceleration, the GTR keeps the performance requirement general, by
stating that the deceleration shall increase after passing over the
transition point.
8. Partial Failure Test--Split Service Brake System
    The current FMVSS No. 122 partial failure test remains largely
unchanged, except for a change in the terminology of applicability due
to the newly proposed motorcycle categories. This is not a substantive
change, as current FMVSS No. 122 indicates that the partial service
brake system failure test ``do[es] not apply to a motor-driven cycle
whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 m.p.h. or less,'' and the
proposed partial failure test specifications are not applicable to
motorcycle categories 3-1 and 3-2. Motorcycle categories 3-1 and 3-2
are motorcycles with a maximum design speed not exceeding 50 km/h (31.1
mph). Thus, the proposed service brake system partial failure test is
not substantially different from the current FMVSS No. 122 test.
    A motorcycle split service brake system is based on the passenger
car brake system. Its use is unique to motorcycles in Canada and the
United States. 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. FMVSS No. 122 is the only national regulation
that addresses a failure test for motorcycles equipped with a split
service brake system.
9. Power-Assisted Braking System Failure Test
    The current FMVSS No. 122 does not have any performance
requirements to test the failure of a power-assisted braking system.
The proposed rule would 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. None of the world's motorcycle brake regulations or standards
currently include such a performance requirement, most likely because
the application of power-assisted braking systems on motorcycles is
relatively new.
    The GRRF recognized that some motorcycles are presently equipped
with power-assisted braking systems, and that the use of such systems
could expand in the future. Existing standards are limited to motor
vehicles where this technology has been in use for many years, such as
on passenger cars. At present, however, there is no known performance
requirement in the event of the failure of a power-assisted braking
system on a motorcycle. The GTR therefore specifies a test to ensure
that, in the event of a power-assisted braking system failure, a
minimum level of braking performance is still available to allow the
rider to bring the motorcycle to a stop. Certifying to the performance
requirement is not required if the motorcycle is equipped with another
separate service brake system that operates without power-assist.
    In summary, the proposed test is based on the dry stop test--single
brake control actuated (paragraph S6.3 of the proposed FMVSS No. 122),
whereby the minimum performance requirement was initially set to that
specified for the secondary brake system for motorcycles equipped with
CBS. In developing the GTR, some believed this performance requirement
was too low. For the revised version of the test, in the case of
separate service brake systems, each brake control shall be tested
separately and capable of meeting the minimum

brake performance for the single rear brake system. In the case of
motorcycles equipped with CBS or a split service brake system, the
proposed rule, consistent with the GTR, specifies testing of each brake
control separately and the minimum performance requirements are those
for the secondary brake system.

C. Summary of Improvements

    This proposal, if made final, would improve the current FMVSS No.
122 requirements and test procedures in several areas. First, it would
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 (``laden''). Second, the proposal would
establish a more stringent high speed test requirement by specifying a
slightly higher rate of deceleration. Third, the proposal would replace
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 proposal would
specify an improved heat fade test based on European and Japanese
national regulations, which share the same test procedure and
performance requirements. Fifth, the proposal would mandate performance
requirements for antilock brake systems when motorcycles are so
equipped. Finally, the proposal would establish a new power-assisted
braking system failure test requirement to evaluate the motorcycle's
performance in the event of a failure in the power-assisted braking
system, if fitted.

VI. Benefits, Costs, and the Proposed Compliance Date

    Although this proposal would add and update FMVSS No. 122 test
procedures, we anticipate that virtually all motorcycles sold in the
U.S. can meet the performance requirements as proposed, and thus, there
is no measurable safety benefit derived from the proposal. However,
NHTSA believes that the proposed performance requirements would help
ensure the safety of motorcycle brake systems and thus have a
beneficial effect on safety. The proposal includes several tests that
would 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 Global 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 proposal would add some new
requirements to FMVSS No. 122 and replace some test procedures and
performance requirements with ones based on more stringent standards
used in another national regulation, none of the proposed tests would
result in measurable costs to motorcycles. The proposal 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 motorcycles sold in the U.S. can virtually
all 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 vice versa. As a result, any
costs for design changes by motorcycle manufacturers to comply with the
proposed performance requirements are expected to be negligible. Also,
additional testing costs to comply with ABS performance requirements,
if the motorcycle is equipped with ABS, are expected to be minimal.
    The agency has tentatively determined that virtually all of the
current motorcycle fleet would comply with the proposal, if made final.
Therefore, we are proposing to make the upgraded requirements mandatory
at the beginning of the first September that is two full years after
the publishing of a final rule. For example, if a final rule is adopted
on December 1, 2009, compliance would be mandatory beginning September
1, 2012. Optional early compliance would be permitted on and after 30
days after the date of publication of a final rule in the Federal
Register.

VII. U.S. Selection of Options Within the GTR

    This NPRM fulfills our obligation to initiate domestic rulemaking
to adopt the provisions of the GTR. The NPRM is based on the Motorcycle
Brake Systems GTR. Certain provisions of the GTR contain options that
Contracting Parties may select from when implementing the GTR into
their national regulations. NHTSA's specifications where there are
options in the GTR are explained here:
     We propose to specify that peak braking coefficient (PBC)
be measured using the ASTM E1136 standard reference test tire, in
accordance with ASTM Method E1337-90. In the GTR, the decision was made
not to specify the method used to measure the coefficient of friction
but leave it to the national regulations to choose which of two test
methods enumerated in the GTR should be used to measure PBC.
     We specify in high friction test surface conditions a PBC
equal to 0.9 instead of a ``nominal'' PBC of 0.9 to make the proposed
test procedures more objective.
     We propose that the initial brake temperature (IBT) be
measured by plug-type thermocouples, as opposed to rubbing-type
thermocouples. The two methods of measuring the IBT are included in the
GTR and each Contracting Party must specify which temperature
measurement it will use in its national regulation.
     The GTR includes a requirement stating that the ``brake
linings shall not contain asbestos.'' The GTR includes this
requirement, which was adopted from UNECE Regulation No. 78, even
though no test method or performance measure is included in the GTR to
determine that the lining contains no asbestos. None of the brake
standards in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including
FMVSS No. 122, contain any requirement concerning the material of the
brake lining. Concerns about asbestos relate to long-term environmental
exposure. This is not within the scope of our rulemaking authority.
Therefore, this NPRM does not include the proposal stating that ``brake
linings shall not contain asbestos.''
     We propose adding a parenthetical to the GTR parking brake
test that is present in current FMVSS No. 122 (see current S5.6, S7.9;
proposed S6.8.3). In 1978, NHTSA amended the FMVSS No.

122 parking brake test, clarifying that the test does not specify that
a motorcycle be held on a 30 percent grade for 5 minutes if the limit
of traction of its braked wheels is reached on a lower grade so that
the motorcycle begins to slide (43 FR 46547, Oct. 10, 1978). This
amendment was based on an interpretation the agency provided in
response to a petition for exemption by a company whose motorcycle's
limit of traction was reached on a 20 percent grade. The amendment had
no effect upon the safety of the rule since it was a statement and
clarification of an existing agency interpretation. A similar limit-of-
traction provision exists with respect to the parking brake system
performance requirements for hydraulically braked motorcycles (S5.2.1
of 49 CFR 571.105).
     While most of the current tests in FMVSS No. 122 evaluate
performance through stopping distance, the UNECE Regulation No. 78 and
JSS 12-61 test methods allow brake performance to be measured through
the use of either mean fully developed deceleration or stopping
distance. While the GTR specifies performance requirements in reference
to the respective national regulation on which the test was based, the
performance tests proposed by NHTSA measure performance exclusively in
stopping distance where applicable, to enhance enforceability of the
Standard as opposed to providing optional performance measures. This is
consistent with how performance requirements are stated in other
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This differs from the GTR in
that our proposed performance tests do not allow manufacturers a choice
to measure performance using either deceleration or stopping distance,
but requires measurement of performance using stopping distance only
where it is the applicable performance measure.
    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. We
believe that the proposed provisions, if adopted, would improve
motorcycle brake systems in the United States.

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 Sec.  322;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
    The agency carefully considered these statutory requirements in
proposing these amendments to FMVSS No. 122. We believe that the
proposed amendments to FMVSS No. 122 are practicable. This document
does not propose significant changes to the current performance
requirements of FMVSS No. 122. Currently, we believe that all
motorcycle brakes will pass the proposed tests. Additionally, if made
final, the amendments would harmonize the U.S. requirements with the
Motorcycle Brake Systems Global Technical Regulation.
    We believe that this proposed rule would be appropriate for the
vehicles subject to the performance requirements. If adopted, the
proposal would continue 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 tentatively concluded that the proposed
amendments would provide objective procedures for determining
compliance. The proposed test procedures have been evaluated by the
agency, and we have tentatively concluded that they help achieve
repeatable and reproducible results. Further, we are proposing test
procedures to provide improved objectivity to existing performance
requirements.

B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's related
policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not
considered to be significant under the Department's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, Feb. 26, 1979). This document proposes
test procedures and performance requirements that would impose minimal
additional costs on manufacturers, and is not expected to require
design changes to current motorcycles. Given the minimal impacts of the
proposed rule, we have not prepared a full regulatory evaluation.
    NHTSA does not anticipate direct safety benefits from this proposed
rule. However, NHTSA believes that the proposed performance
requirements would help ensure the safety of motorcycle brake systems
and thus have a beneficial effect on safety.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a
regulation with Federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency
consults with State and local governments, or the agency consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. NHTSA also may not issue a regulation with
Federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    NHTSA has examined today's proposal pursuant to E.O. 13132 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 proposal does not have
federalism implications because the rule does 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.''
    Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect
of this NPRM. NHTSA rules can have

preemptive effect in at least 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 that preempts State law, not
today's rulemaking, so consultation would be inappropriate.
    Second, in addition to the express preemption noted above, the
Supreme Court has recognized that State requirements imposed on motor
vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law,
can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA
safety standard. When such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy
Clause of the Constitution makes the State requirements unenforceable.
See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). NHTSA has
not discerned any potential State requirements in connection with the
proposed rule, however, in part because such conflicts can arise in
varied contexts. We cannot completely rule out the possibility that, if
the proposal is adopted as a final rule, such a conflict might become
apparent in the future through subsequent experience with the standard.
NHTSA may opine on such conflicts in the future, if warranted.

D. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health
or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by us.
    This rulemaking is not subject to the Executive Order because it is
not economically significant as defined in E.O. 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'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996), 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. This document is consistent with that
requirement.
    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
proposal would 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 proposed 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) (Pub. L. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272) directs us to use
voluntary consensus standards in regulatory activities unless doing so
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 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.
    ASTM E1136, 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. NHTSA notes that the above ASTM standards are
approved for incorporation by reference under 571.500, Low-speed
vehicles.

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). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
if we publish with the final rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted.
    The proposed rule would 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. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this proposal.

L. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

M. 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 (65 FR 19477 at 19478).

IX. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to the Docket Management Facility at the address given
above under ADDRESSES.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by
logging onto the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's
guidelines may be accessed at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/
DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to the Docket Management Facility at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing