Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Motorcycle Brake Systems; Motorcycle Controls and Displays, 70491-70497 [2014-27871]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules regulated areas as determined by the prevailing conditions. (3) Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated areas by contacting the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg by telephone at (727) 824–7506, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. (4) If authorization is granted by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative. (d) Enforcement Date. This rule will be enforced from 11:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on the first Saturday of February. Dated: November 3, 2014. G.D. Case, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port St. Petersburg. [FR Doc. 2014–28051 Filed 11–25–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0117] RIN 2127–AL48 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Motorcycle Brake Systems; Motorcycle Controls and Displays National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). AGENCY: This document proposes to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) Nos. 122 and 123, to allow the use of an internationally recognized symbol as the antilock brake system (ABS) malfunction telltale. Although the use of the symbol complies with the FMVSS No. 122 requirement that the letters ‘‘ABS’’ indicate a malfunction, the height of the letters ‘‘ABS’’ within the standardized malfunction symbol on many motorcycles do not comply with the letter height requirement in FMVSS No. 122. We also are proposing a technical change to correct a mistake in the 2012 final rule adopting FMVSS No. 122. DATES: Submit comments on or before December 26, 2014. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments electronically to the docket identified in mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Nov 25, 2014 Jkt 235001 the heading of this document by visiting the following Web site: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, you can file comments using the following methods: • 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 or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • Fax: (202) 493–2251 Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the docket number identified in the heading of this document. Instructions: 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. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below. 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). Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact Mike Pyne, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, by telephone at (202) 366– 1810. For legal issues, you may contact David Jasinski, Office of the Chief Counsel, by telephone at (202) 366– 2992. You may send mail to both of these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On August 24, 2012, NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal Register amending Federal Motor PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 70491 Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 122, Motorcycle Brake Systems.1 This final rule adopted harmonized requirements and test procedures derived from a global technical regulation (GTR) for motorcycle brakes. The substantive provisions of FMVSS No. 122 had not been updated since their adoption in 1972 and no longer reflected the performance of modern motorcycle brake systems. Consistent with the 1998 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Agreement Concerning the Establishment of Global Technical Regulations for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts Which Can Be Fitted And/or Be Used On Wheeled Vehicles,2 GTR No. 3 was established. GTR No. 3 combined the best practices of requirements and test procedures available internationally, mainly drawn from FMVSS No. 122, UNECE Regulation No. 78, and the Japanese Safety Standard JSS12–61.3 Among the performance requirements adopted as part of the revised FMVSS No. 122 are tests for antilock brake system (ABS) performance. Prior to the August 2012 final rule, FMVSS No. 122 contained no ABS performance requirements. Although FMVSS No. 122 does not require motorcycles to be equipped with ABS, it includes test procedures and minimum performance requirements to assess the stability and stopping performance of motorcycles that are equipped with ABS. The new tests, adopted from the GTR, include stopping distance performance requirements on high and low friction surfaces, wheel lock tests on high and low friction surfaces, and wheel lock tests for high-to-low friction and low-tohigh friction surface transitions. The new performance requirements also include a performance test related to the failure of the ABS system. These new requirements are mandatory for most motorcycles manufactured on or after September 1, 2014. 1 77 FR 51649. 1998 UNECE Agreement Concerning the Establishment of Global Technical Regulations for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts Which Can Be Fitted And/or Be Used On Wheeled Vehicles (1998 Agreement) was concluded under the auspices of the United Nations and provides for the establishment of globally harmonized vehicle regulations. This 1998 Agreement, whose conclusion was spearheaded by the United States, entered into force in 2000 and is administered by the UNECE’s World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29). See http:// www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/ wp29gen/wp29age.html (last accessed June 25, 2014). 3 A copy of GTR No. 3 was placed in the docket for the NPRM associated with the final rule revising FMVSS No. 122. See Docket No. NHTSA–2008– 0150–0002. 2 The E:\FR\FM\26NOP1.SGM 26NOP1 70492 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules with FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays,5 we required that motorcycle brake ABS system failures must be indicated to the driver with a telltale identified by the words ‘‘Antilock’’ or ‘‘Anti-lock’’ or ‘‘ABS.’’ We also added a specification that the telltale be labeled in letters at least 3/32 inch (2.4 mm) high. This minimum letter height specification is consistent with the existing requirement for a brake failure malfunction telltale identifier for motorcycles.6 Several months after the agency published the August 2012 final rule, we were contacted by the Motorcycle Industry Council, Honda, and HarleyDavidson. These organizations informed NHTSA that ABS-equipped motorcycles that they produce already have ABS malfunction warning lamps and that the current practice is to use the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) symbol for ABS malfunction, which is pictured in Figure 1. The ISO symbol incorporates the letters ‘‘ABS’’ consistent with the requirement in FMVSS No. 122. However, the ISO symbol has no size requirement associated with it, nor is there a specification regarding the size of the lettering within the symbol. Honda informed NHTSA that the typical height of the symbol on a production motorcycle equipped with ABS is 7 millimeters, and the letters ‘‘ABS’’ are approximately 2 millimeters high, though the dimensions may vary. We do not have information on the range of symbol or letter sizes among various makes and models, nor are we are aware of any standard that specifies symbol or letter size. However, based on the information provided by Honda and conversations that the agency has had with the Motorcycle Industry Council and Harley-Davidson, we believe that, in order to comply with the letter height requirement for the ABS malfunction telltale identifier in FMVSS No. 122, manufacturers would have to enlarge the symbol or the telltale lamp considerably so that the letters ‘‘ABS’’ are 3⁄32 inch (2.4 millimeters) in height. Alternatively, they could add a separate label using ‘‘ABS’’ or ‘‘Antilock’’ or ‘‘Anti-Lock’’ that are the specified minimum height in place of, or in addition to, the ISO symbol. Motorcycle manufacturers assert that this would constitute a costly redesign of the telltale or instrument panel on many ABS-equipped motorcycles without any discernible safety benefit as a result of the redesign. Upon consideration of the concerns raised by the Motorcycle Industry Council, Honda, and Harley-Davidson, the agency is proposing to remove the letter height specification for the ABS malfunction telltale if manufacturers use the ISO symbol for ABS malfunction. We are also proposing to remove the reference to the ABS malfunction telltale specified in FMVSS No. 101 because that standard does not apply to motorcycles. Instead, we are proposing to place the specification for the ABS malfunction telltale in FMVSS No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays, which is the corresponding FMVSS applicable to motorcycles.7 However, if only text is used for the ABS malfunction telltale, the minimum letter height requirement would still apply. We have no reason to believe that using the ISO symbol in lieu of text labeling at a minimum height would affect the safety of motorcycles or the general public. The types of failure indicated by the ABS malfunction telltale are electronic failures that result in the loss of ABS functionality, but do not cause loss of braking ability. As stated above, FMVSS No. 122 contains a performance requirement to ensure minimum braking capability in the event of an ABS system malfunction. Moreover, the agency has minimum performance requirements to ensure that a minimum level of braking capability is maintained even if there is a more severe system failure such as a brake fluid leak. We request comment on whether there should be a minimum height requirement for an ABS malfunction telltale that uses the ISO symbol. Honda informed NHTSA that the height of the symbol on a motorcycle equipped with ABS is typically 7 millimeters. We request comment on whether a minimum height requirement for the ISO symbol should be applied and, if so, how large the symbol should be. Specifically, we ask whether the 7 millimeter height suggested by Honda as a minimum height (or a different height) would ensure readability without requiring a redesign of the telltale or instrument panel on many ABSequipped motorcycles. In view of this proposal, it is the intent of the agency not to enforce the minimum height requirement for the ABS malfunction telltale for any motorcycle that uses the ISO symbol for ABS malfunction set forth above in Figure 1. We intend to continue this nonenforcement policy until a final rule implementing this proposal becomes effective. This nonenforcement policy will provide relief to motorcycle manufacturers that use the ISO symbol for ABS system malfunction, but could not meet the September 1, 2014 deadline for compliance without incurring expenses associated with redesign of the telltale or instrument panel. Again, we have no information that adverse safety consequences would 4 See, e.g., 49 CFR 571.121, S5.1.6.2. referenced FMVSS No. 101, notwithstanding the fact that it does not apply to motorcycles, because it had an existing labeling requirement for ABS malfunction in Table 1. 5 We VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Nov 25, 2014 Jkt 235001 6 See 49 CFR 571.122a, S5.1.3.1(d). inclusion of the ISO symbol for ABS malfunction in FMVSS No. 123 is also consistent with the recently adopted GTR No. 12, related to the location, identification, and operation of motorcycle controls, telltales, and indicators. See 7 The PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/ wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29registry/ECETRANS-180a12e.pdf. However, this rulemaking is not intended to implement any other provision of GTR No. 12. E:\FR\FM\26NOP1.SGM 26NOP1 EP26NO14.006</GPH> mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS The prior version of FMVSS No. 122 did not include any requirements for an ABS malfunction telltale. Both the GTR and the 2008 NPRM proposing the revised FMVSS No. 122 specified that all motorcycles equipped with ABS must also be fitted with a yellow warning lamp that illuminates whenever there is a malfunction that affects the generation or transmission of signals in the motorcycle’s ABS system. We provided no further specifications for the lamp in the NPRM. In paragraph S5.1.10.2 of the final rule, consistent with other FMVSSs addressing ABS system failure 4 and Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules result from allowing motorcycle manufacturers to use the ISO symbol for the ABS malfunction telltale rather than requiring them to add a new ABS malfunction telltale at this time. We are also proposing a correction of a typographical error in FMVSS No. 122. In paragraph S6.3.2(d), which contains the test procedure for the dry stop test with a single brake control actuated, the brake actuation force specified for motorcycles in categories 3–1, 3–2, 3–3, and 3–5 is specified as ≤350 N and, for category 3–4 motorcycles, ≤500 N. However, the higher actuation force was intended only for category 3–5 motorcycles rather than category 3–4 motorcycles. We are proposing this correction in this NPRM to be consistent with GTR No. 3 and the intent of the agency in the final rule. Public Participation How long do I have to submit comments? We are providing a 30-day comment period. The comment period is shorter than the customary 60-day comment period used by the agency because the requirement that motorcycles equipped with ABS contain a malfunction telltale meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 122 took effect on September 1, 2014. We do not believe a longer comment period is necessary for the public to consider this proposal and respond to it. A shorter comment period will allow us to issue a final rule more quickly to ensure any uncertainty about the legal requirements for the ABS malfunction telltale lamp is resolved as quickly as possible. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 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 your comments electronically to the docket following the steps outlined under ADDRESSES. You may also submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, by mail to Docket Management at the beginning of this document, under ADDRESSES. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Nov 25, 2014 Jkt 235001 How can I be sure that my comments were received? If you wish to be notified upon receipt of your mailed 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 the following to the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (NCC– 110), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590: (1) A complete copy of the submission; (2) a redacted copy of the submission with the confidential information removed; and (3) either a second complete copy or those portions of the submission containing the material for which confidential treatment is claimed and any additional information that you deem important to the Chief Counsel’s consideration of your confidentiality claim. A request for confidential treatment that complies with 49 CFR part 512 must accompany the complete submission provided to the Chief Counsel. For further information, submitters who plan to request confidential treatment for any portion of their submissions are advised to review 49 CFR part 512, particularly those sections relating to document submission requirements. Failure to adhere to the requirements of Part 512 may result in the release of confidential information to the public docket. In addition, you should submit two copies from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given at the beginning of this document under ADDRESSES. Will the agency consider late comments? We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice under DATES. In accordance with our policies, to the extent possible, we will also consider comments received after the specified comment closing date. If we receive a comment too late for us to consider in developing the proposed rule, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action. How can I read the comments submitted by other people? You may read the comments received on the Internet. To read the comments PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 70493 on the Internet, go to http:// www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions provided. You may download the comments. The comments are imaged documents, in either TIFF or PDF format. Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the Docket for new material. You may also see the comments at the address and times given near the beginning of this document under ADDRESSES. IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of Transportation’s regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking is not considered significant and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’ The rulemaking action has also been determined not to be significant under the Department’s regulatory policies and procedures. The effects of the proposed changes are so minimal that the preparation of a full regulatory evaluation is not required. We believe that this NPRM, if adopted, would not impose any costs upon manufacturers or vehicle purchasers. It would, however, prevent motorcycle manufacturers from incurring costs associated with redesign of the ABS malfunction telltale or instrument panel that were not intended. This proposal is not expect to have any impact on safety. B. 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). The Small Business Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small business, in part, as a business entity ‘‘which operates primarily within the United States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)). E:\FR\FM\26NOP1.SGM 26NOP1 70494 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NHTSA has considered the effects of this NPRM under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this NPRM will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would directly impact manufacturers of motorcycles equipped with ABS. We do not believe this NPRM will have a significant economic impact on those manufacturers. This NPRM would not require any action by manufacturers, but would prevent motorcycle manufacturers from incurring costs associated with redesign of the ABS malfunction telltale or instrument panel. C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) NHTSA has examined today’s final rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule would not have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.’’ NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any nonidentical State legislative and administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Nov 25, 2014 Jkt 235001 The express preemption provision described above is subject to a savings clause under which ‘‘[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law.’’ 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of NHTSA’s rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer, notwithstanding the manufacturer’s compliance with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist—for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum standard— the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered whether this rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The agency’s ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation. To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today’s rule and finds that this rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this rule preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by today’s rule. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the minimum standard announced here. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action. PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 D. 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; Feb. 7, 1996), requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties file suit in court; (6) adequately defines key terms; and (7) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement. Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of preemption is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in court. E. Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19855, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically significant’’ as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or safety risk that the agency has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the agency 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 the agency. This notice is part of a rulemaking that is not expected to have a disproportionate health or safety impact on children. Consequently, no further analysis is required under Executive Order 13045. F. Paperwork Reduction Act Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. There is not any information E:\FR\FM\26NOP1.SGM 26NOP1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules collection requirement associated with this NPRM. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory provisions regarding NHTSA’s vehicle safety authority) or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Technical standards are defined by the NTTAA as ‘‘performance-based or design-specific technical specification and related management systems practices.’’ They pertain to ‘‘products and processes, such as size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process or material.’’ Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies include ASTM International, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are required by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using such standards. This NPRM proposes the inclusion of an ISO symbol for ABS malfunction in the FMVSS related to motorcycle controls and displays. Although this symbol is currently allowed by FMVSS No. 122, this rulemaking would remove the letter height requirement for the letters ‘‘ABS,’’ which is not included in the ISO standard. H. 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 annually (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 the agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Nov 25, 2014 Jkt 235001 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 the agency to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that alternative was not adopted. This NPRM would not result in any expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million, adjusted for inflation. I. National Environmental Policy Act NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment. J. 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. K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 70495 document to find this action in the Unified Agenda. L. Privacy Act Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78). List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571 Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 571 as follows: PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 1. The authority citation for part 571 of Title 49 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95. 2. Amend § 571.122 by revising S5.1.10.2(c) and S6.3.2(d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii) to read as follows: ■ § 571.122 Standard No. 122; Motorcycle brake systems. * * * * * S5.1.10.2 Antilock brake system warning lamps. * * * * * (c) The warning lamp shall be labeled in accordance with the specifications in Table 3 of Standard No. 123 (§ 571.123) for ‘‘ABS Malfunction’’ (Item No. 13). * * * * * S6.3.2 Test conditions and procedure. * * * * * (d) * * * (2) * * * (i) ≤350 N for motorcycle categories 3–1, 3–2, 3–3, and 3–4. (ii) ≤500 N for motorcycle category 3– 5. * * * * * ■ 3. Amend § 571.123 by revising Table 3 to read as follows: § 571.123 Standard No. 123; Motorcycle controls and displays. * * * * BILLING CODE 4910–59–P E:\FR\FM\26NOP1.SGM 26NOP1 * 70496 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules Table 3 Motorcycle Control and Display Identification Reqmrements Column l Column 2 Column 3 Column4 Control and Display Identification Symbol Identification at Appropriate Position of Control and Display Equipment Control and Display Identification Word Ignition Ignition Off 2 Supplemental Engine Stop (Off, Run) Engine Stop Off, Run 3 Manual Choke or Mixture Enrichment Choke or Enrichener 4 Electric Starter 5 Headlamp Upper-Lower Beam Control Lights 6 Horn Horn 7 Turn Signal Turn Speedometer MPH OR MPH and kmlh No. (i) =o :JIIIIIII!!o - : :. = Start 1 2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 9 VerDate Sep<11>2014 Neutral Indicator 16:55 Nov 25, 2014 Jkt 235001 L,R MPH 5 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 4 MPH, kmlh 5 N Neutral PO 00000 Hi, Lo Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\26NOP1.SGM 26NOP1 EP26NO14.007</GPH> 8 ~ Issued in Washington, DC, on November 19, 2014 under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95, 501.5, and 501.8. R. Ryan Posten, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 2014–27871 Filed 11–25–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–C DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Comments on Amendment 24 must be received on or before January 26, 2015. DATES: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648–BE27 Fisheries Off West Coast States; Amendment 24 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability of proposed fishery management plan amendment; request for comments. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS AGENCY: NMFS announces that the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 24 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery SUMMARY: 16:55 Nov 25, 2014 You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA– NMFS–2014–0138, by any of the following methods: • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/ #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20140138, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments. • Mail: Submit written comments to William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE., Seattle, WA, 98115. • Fax: 206–525–4736; Attn: Sarah Williams ADDRESSES: 50 CFR Part 660 VerDate Sep<11>2014 Management Plan (PCGFMP) for Secretarial review. Amendment 24 would modify the PCGFMP to implement default harvest control rules, make minor changes to clarify routine management measure adjustment and implementation procedures, add two rockfish species to the PCGFMP, and designate several species as Ecosystem Component Species. Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 70497 Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ A’’ in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only. Information relevant to Amendment 24, which includes a draft environmental impact statement (EIS), a regulatory impact review (RIR), and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) are available for public review during business hours at the office of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), at 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Portland, OR 97220, phone: 503– 820–2280, or at www.pcouncil.org. Copies of additional reports referred to E:\FR\FM\26NOP1.SGM 26NOP1 EP26NO14.008</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70491-70497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27871]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0117]
RIN 2127-AL48


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Motorcycle Brake Systems; 
Motorcycle Controls and Displays

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards (FMVSSs) Nos. 122 and 123, to allow the use of an 
internationally recognized symbol as the antilock brake system (ABS) 
malfunction telltale. Although the use of the symbol complies with the 
FMVSS No. 122 requirement that the letters ``ABS'' indicate a 
malfunction, the height of the letters ``ABS'' within the standardized 
malfunction symbol on many motorcycles do not comply with the letter 
height requirement in FMVSS No. 122. We also are proposing a technical 
change to correct a mistake in the 2012 final rule adopting FMVSS No. 
122.

DATES: Submit comments on or before December 26, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments electronically to the docket 
identified in the heading of this document by visiting the following 
Web site:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Alternatively, you can file comments using the following methods:
     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 or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room 
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: (202) 493-2251
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the 
docket number identified in the heading of this document.
    Instructions: 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. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    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).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact 
Mike Pyne, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, by telephone at (202) 
366-1810. For legal issues, you may contact David Jasinski, Office of 
the Chief Counsel, by telephone at (202) 366-2992. You may send mail to 
both of these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On August 24, 2012, NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal 
Register amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 
122, Motorcycle Brake Systems.\1\ This final rule adopted harmonized 
requirements and test procedures derived from a global technical 
regulation (GTR) for motorcycle brakes. The substantive provisions of 
FMVSS No. 122 had not been updated since their adoption in 1972 and no 
longer reflected the performance of modern motorcycle brake systems. 
Consistent with the 1998 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 
(UNECE) Agreement Concerning the Establishment of Global Technical 
Regulations for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts Which Can Be 
Fitted And/or Be Used On Wheeled Vehicles,\2\ GTR No. 3 was 
established. GTR No. 3 combined the best practices of requirements and 
test procedures available internationally, mainly drawn from FMVSS No. 
122, UNECE Regulation No. 78, and the Japanese Safety Standard JSS12-
61.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 77 FR 51649.
    \2\ The 1998 UNECE Agreement Concerning the Establishment of 
Global Technical Regulations for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and 
Parts Which Can Be Fitted And/or Be Used On Wheeled Vehicles (1998 
Agreement) was concluded under the auspices of the United Nations 
and provides for the establishment of globally harmonized vehicle 
regulations. This 1998 Agreement, whose conclusion was spearheaded 
by the United States, entered into force in 2000 and is administered 
by the UNECE's World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle 
Regulations (WP.29). See http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29age.html (last accessed June 25, 2014).
    \3\ A copy of GTR No. 3 was placed in the docket for the NPRM 
associated with the final rule revising FMVSS No. 122. See Docket 
No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among the performance requirements adopted as part of the revised 
FMVSS No. 122 are tests for antilock brake system (ABS) performance. 
Prior to the August 2012 final rule, FMVSS No. 122 contained no ABS 
performance requirements. Although FMVSS No. 122 does not require 
motorcycles to be equipped with ABS, it includes test procedures and 
minimum performance requirements to assess the stability and stopping 
performance of motorcycles that are equipped with ABS. The new tests, 
adopted from the GTR, include stopping distance performance 
requirements on high and low friction surfaces, wheel lock tests on 
high and low friction surfaces, and wheel lock tests for high-to-low 
friction and low-to-high friction surface transitions. The new 
performance requirements also include a performance test related to the 
failure of the ABS system. These new requirements are mandatory for 
most motorcycles manufactured on or after September 1, 2014.

[[Page 70492]]

    The prior version of FMVSS No. 122 did not include any requirements 
for an ABS malfunction telltale. Both the GTR and the 2008 NPRM 
proposing the revised FMVSS No. 122 specified that all motorcycles 
equipped with ABS must also be fitted with a yellow warning lamp that 
illuminates whenever there is a malfunction that affects the generation 
or transmission of signals in the motorcycle's ABS system. We provided 
no further specifications for the lamp in the NPRM.
    In paragraph S5.1.10.2 of the final rule, consistent with other 
FMVSSs addressing ABS system failure \4\ and with FMVSS No. 101, 
Controls and Displays,\5\ we required that motorcycle brake ABS system 
failures must be indicated to the driver with a telltale identified by 
the words ``Antilock'' or ``Anti-lock'' or ``ABS.'' We also added a 
specification that the telltale be labeled in letters at least 3/32 
inch (2.4 mm) high. This minimum letter height specification is 
consistent with the existing requirement for a brake failure 
malfunction telltale identifier for motorcycles.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., 49 CFR 571.121, S5.1.6.2.
    \5\ We referenced FMVSS No. 101, notwithstanding the fact that 
it does not apply to motorcycles, because it had an existing 
labeling requirement for ABS malfunction in Table 1.
    \6\ See 49 CFR 571.122a, S5.1.3.1(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several months after the agency published the August 2012 final 
rule, we were contacted by the Motorcycle Industry Council, Honda, and 
Harley-Davidson. These organizations informed NHTSA that ABS-equipped 
motorcycles that they produce already have ABS malfunction warning 
lamps and that the current practice is to use the International 
Organization for Standardization (ISO) symbol for ABS malfunction, 
which is pictured in Figure 1. The ISO symbol incorporates the letters 
``ABS'' consistent with the requirement in FMVSS No. 122. However, the 
ISO symbol has no size requirement associated with it, nor is there a 
specification regarding the size of the lettering within the symbol.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26NO14.006

    Honda informed NHTSA that the typical height of the symbol on a 
production motorcycle equipped with ABS is 7 millimeters, and the 
letters ``ABS'' are approximately 2 millimeters high, though the 
dimensions may vary. We do not have information on the range of symbol 
or letter sizes among various makes and models, nor are we are aware of 
any standard that specifies symbol or letter size.
    However, based on the information provided by Honda and 
conversations that the agency has had with the Motorcycle Industry 
Council and Harley-Davidson, we believe that, in order to comply with 
the letter height requirement for the ABS malfunction telltale 
identifier in FMVSS No. 122, manufacturers would have to enlarge the 
symbol or the telltale lamp considerably so that the letters ``ABS'' 
are \3/32\ inch (2.4 millimeters) in height. Alternatively, they could 
add a separate label using ``ABS'' or ``Antilock'' or ``Anti-Lock'' 
that are the specified minimum height in place of, or in addition to, 
the ISO symbol. Motorcycle manufacturers assert that this would 
constitute a costly redesign of the telltale or instrument panel on 
many ABS-equipped motorcycles without any discernible safety benefit as 
a result of the redesign.
    Upon consideration of the concerns raised by the Motorcycle 
Industry Council, Honda, and Harley-Davidson, the agency is proposing 
to remove the letter height specification for the ABS malfunction 
telltale if manufacturers use the ISO symbol for ABS malfunction. We 
are also proposing to remove the reference to the ABS malfunction 
telltale specified in FMVSS No. 101 because that standard does not 
apply to motorcycles. Instead, we are proposing to place the 
specification for the ABS malfunction telltale in FMVSS No. 123, 
Motorcycle Controls and Displays, which is the corresponding FMVSS 
applicable to motorcycles.\7\ However, if only text is used for the ABS 
malfunction telltale, the minimum letter height requirement would still 
apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The inclusion of the ISO symbol for ABS malfunction in FMVSS 
No. 123 is also consistent with the recently adopted GTR No. 12, 
related to the location, identification, and operation of motorcycle 
controls, telltales, and indicators. See http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29registry/ECE-TRANS-180a12e.pdf. However, this rulemaking is not intended to 
implement any other provision of GTR No. 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have no reason to believe that using the ISO symbol in lieu of 
text labeling at a minimum height would affect the safety of 
motorcycles or the general public. The types of failure indicated by 
the ABS malfunction telltale are electronic failures that result in the 
loss of ABS functionality, but do not cause loss of braking ability. As 
stated above, FMVSS No. 122 contains a performance requirement to 
ensure minimum braking capability in the event of an ABS system 
malfunction. Moreover, the agency has minimum performance requirements 
to ensure that a minimum level of braking capability is maintained even 
if there is a more severe system failure such as a brake fluid leak.
    We request comment on whether there should be a minimum height 
requirement for an ABS malfunction telltale that uses the ISO symbol. 
Honda informed NHTSA that the height of the symbol on a motorcycle 
equipped with ABS is typically 7 millimeters. We request comment on 
whether a minimum height requirement for the ISO symbol should be 
applied and, if so, how large the symbol should be. Specifically, we 
ask whether the 7 millimeter height suggested by Honda as a minimum 
height (or a different height) would ensure readability without 
requiring a redesign of the telltale or instrument panel on many ABS-
equipped motorcycles.
    In view of this proposal, it is the intent of the agency not to 
enforce the minimum height requirement for the ABS malfunction telltale 
for any motorcycle that uses the ISO symbol for ABS malfunction set 
forth above in Figure 1. We intend to continue this nonenforcement 
policy until a final rule implementing this proposal becomes effective. 
This nonenforcement policy will provide relief to motorcycle 
manufacturers that use the ISO symbol for ABS system malfunction, but 
could not meet the September 1, 2014 deadline for compliance without 
incurring expenses associated with redesign of the telltale or 
instrument panel. Again, we have no information that adverse safety 
consequences would

[[Page 70493]]

result from allowing motorcycle manufacturers to use the ISO symbol for 
the ABS malfunction telltale rather than requiring them to add a new 
ABS malfunction telltale at this time.
    We are also proposing a correction of a typographical error in 
FMVSS No. 122. In paragraph S6.3.2(d), which contains the test 
procedure for the dry stop test with a single brake control actuated, 
the brake actuation force specified for motorcycles in categories 3-1, 
3-2, 3-3, and 3-5 is specified as <=350 N and, for category 3-4 
motorcycles, <=500 N. However, the higher actuation force was intended 
only for category 3-5 motorcycles rather than category 3-4 motorcycles. 
We are proposing this correction in this NPRM to be consistent with GTR 
No. 3 and the intent of the agency in the final rule.

Public Participation

How long do I have to submit comments?
    We are providing a 30-day comment period. The comment period is 
shorter than the customary 60-day comment period used by the agency 
because the requirement that motorcycles equipped with ABS contain a 
malfunction telltale meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 122 took 
effect on September 1, 2014. We do not believe a longer comment period 
is necessary for the public to consider this proposal and respond to 
it. A shorter comment period will allow us to issue a final rule more 
quickly to ensure any uncertainty about the legal requirements for the 
ABS malfunction telltale lamp is resolved as quickly as possible.
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 your comments electronically to the docket following 
the steps outlined under ADDRESSES. You may also submit two copies of 
your comments, including the attachments, by mail to Docket Management 
at the beginning of this document, under ADDRESSES.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
    If you wish to be notified upon receipt of your mailed 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 the following to the NHTSA Office of 
Chief Counsel (NCC-110), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 
20590: (1) A complete copy of the submission; (2) a redacted copy of 
the submission with the confidential information removed; and (3) 
either a second complete copy or those portions of the submission 
containing the material for which confidential treatment is claimed and 
any additional information that you deem important to the Chief 
Counsel's consideration of your confidentiality claim. A request for 
confidential treatment that complies with 49 CFR part 512 must 
accompany the complete submission provided to the Chief Counsel. For 
further information, submitters who plan to request confidential 
treatment for any portion of their submissions are advised to review 49 
CFR part 512, particularly those sections relating to document 
submission requirements. Failure to adhere to the requirements of Part 
512 may result in the release of confidential information to the public 
docket. In addition, you should submit two copies from which you have 
deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket 
Management at the address given at the beginning of this document under 
ADDRESSES.
Will the agency consider late comments?
    We will consider all comments received before the close of business 
on the comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice 
under DATES. In accordance with our policies, to the extent possible, 
we will also consider comments received after the specified comment 
closing date. If we receive a comment too late for us to consider in 
developing the proposed rule, we will consider that comment as an 
informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
    You may read the comments received on the Internet. To read the 
comments on the Internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow 
the on-line instructions provided.
    You may download the comments. The comments are imaged documents, 
in either TIFF or PDF format. Please note that even after the comment 
closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the 
Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late 
comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the 
Docket for new material.
    You may also see the comments at the address and times given near 
the beginning of this document under ADDRESSES.

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

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

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking is 
not considered significant and was not reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review.'' The rulemaking action has also been determined not to be 
significant under the Department's regulatory policies and procedures.
    The effects of the proposed changes are so minimal that the 
preparation of a full regulatory evaluation is not required. We believe 
that this NPRM, if adopted, would not impose any costs upon 
manufacturers or vehicle purchasers. It would, however, prevent 
motorcycle manufacturers from incurring costs associated with redesign 
of the ABS malfunction telltale or instrument panel that were not 
intended. This proposal is not expect to have any impact on safety.

B. 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). 
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates 
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)).

[[Page 70494]]

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of 
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this NPRM under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. I certify that this NPRM will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This 
proposed rule would directly impact manufacturers of motorcycles 
equipped with ABS. We do not believe this NPRM will have a significant 
economic impact on those manufacturers. This NPRM would not require any 
action by manufacturers, but would prevent motorcycle manufacturers 
from incurring costs associated with redesign of the ABS malfunction 
telltale or instrument panel.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order 
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional 
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is 
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that 
the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule would not have 
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: 
When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a 
State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue 
in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a 
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is 
identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any 
non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the 
same aspect of performance.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a 
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety 
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from 
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this 
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle 
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express 
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme 
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied 
preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of 
NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that 
NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual 
conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would 
effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone 
obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer, 
notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard. 
Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum 
standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose 
a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be 
preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist--for 
example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum 
standard--the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly 
preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered 
whether this rule could or should preempt State common law causes of 
action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the 
preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that 
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
    To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language 
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's rule 
and finds that this rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a 
minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this rule 
preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard 
on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by today's rule. 
Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not 
conflict with the minimum standard announced here. Without any 
conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common 
law tort cause of action.

D. Executive Order 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; Feb. 7, 1996), requires that Executive agencies make every 
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies 
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) specifies 
whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties 
file suit in court; (6) adequately defines key terms; and (7) addresses 
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship 
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is 
consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of 
preemption is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no 
requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or 
pursue other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in 
court.

E. Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19855, April 23, 1997), applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, 
health, or safety risk that the agency has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the agency 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 the agency.
    This notice is part of a rulemaking that is not expected to have a 
disproportionate health or safety impact on children. Consequently, no 
further analysis is required under Executive Order 13045.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not 
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency 
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. There is not 
any information

[[Page 70495]]

collection requirement associated with this NPRM.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would 
be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory provisions 
regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise impractical. 
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Technical standards 
are defined by the NTTAA as ``performance-based or design-specific 
technical specification and related management systems practices.'' 
They pertain to ``products and processes, such as size, strength, or 
technical performance of a product, process or material.''
    Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus 
standards bodies include ASTM International, the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE), and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 
If NHTSA does not use available and potentially applicable voluntary 
consensus standards, we are required by the Act to provide Congress, 
through OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using such 
standards.
    This NPRM proposes the inclusion of an ISO symbol for ABS 
malfunction in the FMVSS related to motorcycle controls and displays. 
Although this symbol is currently allowed by FMVSS No. 122, this 
rulemaking would remove the letter height requirement for the letters 
``ABS,'' which is not included in the ISO standard.

H. 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 annually (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 the agency 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 the agency to adopt an alternative 
other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation 
of why that alternative was not adopted.
    This NPRM would not result in any expenditure by State, local, or 
tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million, 
adjusted for inflation.

I. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that 
implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on 
the quality of the human environment.

J. 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.

K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

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

L. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
part 571 as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 of Title 49 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

0
2. Amend Sec.  571.122 by revising S5.1.10.2(c) and S6.3.2(d)(2)(i) and 
(d)(2)(ii) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    S5.1.10.2 Antilock brake system warning lamps.
* * * * *
    (c) The warning lamp shall be labeled in accordance with the 
specifications in Table 3 of Standard No. 123 (Sec.  571.123) for ``ABS 
Malfunction'' (Item No. 13).
* * * * *
    S6.3.2 Test conditions and procedure.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) <=350 N for motorcycle categories 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4.
    (ii) <=500 N for motorcycle category 3-5.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  571.123 by revising Table 3 to read as follows:


Sec.  571.123  Standard No. 123; Motorcycle controls and displays.

* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 70496]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26NO14.007


[[Page 70497]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26NO14.008


    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 19, 2014 under authority 
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95, 501.5, and 501.8.
R. Ryan Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2014-27871 Filed 11-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C