Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Motorcycle Brake Systems; Motorcycle Controls and Displays, 1292-1300 [2020-27375]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1292-1300]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27375]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0110]
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: Final rule; technical corrections.

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

SUMMARY: This document amends Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 
(FMVSS) Nos. 122 and 123 to allow the use of an internationally 
recognized symbol. It also relocates the telltale specifications for 
anti-lock braking system (ABS) malfunction from FMVSS No. 101 to the 
appropriate table in FMVSS No. 123 since the latter applies to 
motorcycles. In addition, this final rule makes two technical 
corrections: It corrects motorcycle category references in S6.3.2 of 
FMVSS No. 122 and an outdated table reference found in FMVSS No. 135.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 8, 2021.
    Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of 
this final rule must be received by February 22, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer 
to the docket number set forth above and be submitted to the 
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Pyne, Office of Crash 
Avoidance Standards, by telephone at 202-366-4171 or Callie Roach, 
Office of the Chief Counsel, by telephone at 202-366-2992. You may send 
mail to both officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of the November 2014 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On August 24, 2012, the agency published a final rule amending 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 122, Motorcycle brake 
systems.\1\ The final rule updated provisions of FMVSS No. 122 to 
reflect the performance of modern motorcycle brake systems. The final 
rule adopted requirements and test procedures derived from Global 
Technical Regulation (GTR) No. 3 for motorcycle brakes. Adopted in 
2006, GTR No. 3 combined the best practices from requirements and test 
procedures available internationally, drawn primarily from FMVSS No. 
122, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Regulation 
No. 78, and Japanese Safety Standard JSS12-61.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 77 FR 51649.
    \2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revised FMVSS No. 122 adopted performance requirements for 
antilock brake system (ABS) performance. Although FMVSS No. 122 as 
amended in 2012 does not require motorcycles to be equipped with ABS, 
it includes performance requirements for motorcycles that are equipped 
with ABS. These requirements apply to motorcycles manufactured on or 
after September 1, 2014.
    Both the GTR and the 2008 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for 
FMVSS No. 122 \3\ 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. The prior version of FMVSS No. 
122 did not include any requirements for an ABS malfunction telltale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 73 FR 54020 (Sept. 17, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule, consistent with other FMVSS addressing ABS system 
failure,\4\ and with FMVSS No. 101, Controls and displays,\5\ required 
that motorcycle ABS system failure be indicated to the operator with a 
telltale identified by the words ``Antilock'' or ``Anti-lock'' or 
``ABS.'' \6\ The final rule also added a specification that the 
telltale be labeled in letters at least 3/32 inch (2.4 mm) high.\7\ 
This minimum letter height specification is consistent with the 
existing requirement for a brake failure telltale identifier for 
motorcycles.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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\ 49 CFR 571.122, S5.1.10.2(c).
    \7\ 49 CFR 571.122, S5.1.10.2(c).
    \8\ 49 CFR 571.122a, S5.1.3.1(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several months after the agency published the final rule in August 
2012, the American Honda Motor Company (Honda), manufacturer of Honda 
motorcycles, contacted the agency to inform NHTSA that the ABS-equipped 
motorcycles it and other manufacturers produce already are equipped 
with ABS malfunction warning lamps and told the agency that the current 
practice is to use the International Organization for Standardization 
(ISO) symbol for ABS

[[Page 1293]]

malfunction. The ISO symbol is pictured in Figure 1. The ISO symbol 
incorporates the letters ``ABS'' consistent with the requirement in 
FMVSS No. 122. However, GTR No. 12, the global technical regulation 
concerning the location, identification, and operation of motorcycle 
controls, telltales, and indicators, does not specify a size for the 
ISO symbol, nor is there a specification regarding the size of the 
lettering within the symbol.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA21.012

    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. NHTSA lacks any other information on the range of 
symbol or letter sizes among various makes and models, and is unaware 
of a standardized symbol size or letter size to which manufacturers 
adhere.
    According to the information provided by Honda and conversations 
that the agency had with the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. (MIC) 
and Harley-Davidson Motor Company (Harley-Davidson), to comply with the 
letter height requirement for the ABS malfunction telltale identifier 
in FMVSS No. 122, manufacturers would have to enlarge the telltale 
considerably so that the letters ``ABS'' contained within the ISO 
symbol are at least 3/32 inch (2.4 millimeters) in height. 
Alternatively, they would have to add a separate label using ``ABS'' or 
``Antilock'' or ``Anti-lock'' displayed at the specified minimum height 
in place of, or in addition to, the ISO symbol. Motorcycle 
manufacturers stated that this would constitute a costly redesign of 
the telltale or instrument panel on many ABS-equipped motorcycles 
without any discernible safety benefit from the redesign.
    Upon consideration of the concerns raised by the MIC, Honda, and 
Harley-Davidson, the agency issued an NPRM on November 26, 2014 (79 FR 
70491). The agency proposed removing the letter height specification 
for the ABS malfunction telltale if manufacturers use the ISO symbol 
for ABS malfunction. However, if only text is used for the ABS 
malfunction telltale, the minimum letter height requirement would still 
apply. We also proposed removing the reference to the specifications 
for ABS malfunction telltales in Table 1 of FMVSS No. 101 because that 
standard does not apply to motorcycles. Instead, we proposed adding 
both the FMVSS No. 101 telltale specifications and the ISO ABS 
malfunction symbol to Table 3 of FMVSS No. 123, Motorcycle controls and 
displays, which is the relevant FMVSS applicable to motorcycles.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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 https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29registry/ECE-TRANS-180a12e.pdf. However, this rulemaking is not intended to 
implement provisions of GTR No. 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency sought comments on whether there should be a minimum 
height requirement for an ABS malfunction telltale that uses the ISO 
symbol and, if so, how large the symbol should be. Specifically, we 
asked 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.
    Furthermore, in light of the proposed changes, the agency announced 
in the NPRM that it was adopting a policy not to enforce the minimum 
height requirement for the ABS malfunction telltale for any motorcycle 
that uses the ISO symbol for ABS malfunction until a final rule 
implementing the proposal became effective. This non-enforcement policy 
provided relief to motorcycle manufacturers that use the ISO symbol for 
ABS malfunction but that could not meet the September 1, 2014, deadline 
for compliance without redesigning the telltale or instrument panel. 
Again, we have no information indicating that adverse safety 
consequences would result from allowing motorcycle manufacturers to use 
the ISO symbol for the ABS malfunction telltale as an alternative to 
the currently permissible ABS malfunction telltales.
    We also proposed correction of an 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 for category 3-5 
motorcycles rather than category 3-4 motorcycles. We proposed this 
correction in the NPRM to be consistent with GTR No. 3 and with NHTSA's 
intention in the August 2012 final rule.

II. Summary of Comments

    NHTSA received 39 comments on the proposal; the MIC, Harley-
Davidson, Honda, and 36 individuals provided comments.\10\ The MIC, 
Harley-Davidson, Honda, and six individuals supported allowing the ISO 
symbol. Two commenters opposed allowing the ISO symbol to be used, 
stating that it is either not easily recognizable or is ambiguous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The comments may be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov in 
Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Response to Comments

A. Use of the ISO Symbol for an ABS Malfunction as an Alternative to 
the Required Text

    In general, the commenters agreed with the proposal. However, two 
commenters opposed the use of the symbol, stating that the symbol is 
not easily recognizable. The agency does not agree that the ISO symbol 
is less recognizable than the currently permissible ABS malfunction 
telltales because the acronym ``ABS,'' which is a permissible telltale 
under the current regulation if it meets the height requirement, is 
contained in the ISO symbol. Therefore, allowing the ISO symbol to be 
used as the ABS malfunction telltale does not make the telltale less 
recognizable than is currently permissible.
    Furthermore, the agency believes that unfamiliarity with the ISO 
telltale symbol does not pose an undue immediate safety risk for the 
rider because an ABS malfunction warning only indicates that the anti-
lock

[[Page 1294]]

functionality is compromised while the overall brake system 
functionality is maintained. Motorcycle operators who are unfamiliar 
with the symbol may then look up its meaning in the instruction manual 
when they are able after seeing the notification on the display. 
Concerns about whether an ABS-related telltale is instantly 
recognizable might be of more concern in the context of telltales that 
illuminate because the ABS is activated, but the malfunction telltale, 
as explained, serves a different purpose. Currently, there is no 
requirement for motorcycles to have telltales that indicate when ABS is 
activated, and drivers are usually notified of an ABS activation by the 
haptic feedback (vibration or pulsing) caused by the ABS cycling.
    As stated in the NPRM, the agency has 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 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 
foundation braking ability. 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. Therefore, NHTSA is adopting the proposal in the NPRM 
to allow the ISO symbol as an alternative to the text ``ABS,'' ``Anti-
lock,'' or ``Antilock.''

B. Height Requirements of the ISO Symbol or Letters Within the Symbol

    NHTSA solicited comments regarding whether there should be a 
minimum height for the ISO symbol or for the letters ``ABS'' that 
appear within the symbol. NHTSA received comments from the MIC, Harley-
Davidson, Honda, and 10 individuals opposed to setting a minimum height 
requirement for the ISO symbol. The MIC, Harley-Davidson, and Honda 
opposed adding a height requirement for the letters within the ISO 
symbol, stating that there is no corresponding minimum height 
requirement in GTR No. 12 and emphasizing their desire for 
harmonization.
    The agency agrees with the commenters that mandating a minimum 
height is unnecessary because NHTSA does not believe that, in the 
absence of a minimum height requirement, original equipment 
manufacturers (OEMs) will create illegible ABS telltales. As Harley-
Davidson's comment noted, GTR No. 12 has a qualitative visibility 
requirement for ABS telltales, specifying that the symbol must be 
located so that it is ``visible to the driver when seated in the 
driving position.'' Although NHTSA is not specifying such a requirement 
in FMVSS No. 123, NHTSA believes manufacturers will ensure that ABS ISO 
symbols are large enough to be read by drivers. Additionally, OEMs have 
been using the symbol for years and, as far as NHTSA is aware, have 
done so without negative consequences. Moving forward with the 
proposal, the agency will not implement a height requirement for the 
ISO symbol which will ensure harmonization with GTR No. 3 and to some 
extent with GTR No. 12.

C. Height Requirements for the ``ABS,'' ``Anti-lock,'' or ``Antilock'' 
Lettering if the ISO Symbol Is Not Used

    Although the agency did not request comment on this issue in the 
NPRM, NHTSA received comments from the MIC and two individuals 
suggesting that the agency remove the lettering height requirement for 
``ABS,'' ``Anti-lock,'' or ``Antilock'' when the ISO symbol is not 
used. The MIC states that it is unaware of any science that was relied 
on to establish or support the use of 3/32-inch letter height for this 
specific application. The MIC also states that the corresponding GTR 
does not reference any lettering heights or symbol dimensions.
    The agency understands the inconsistency perceived by the MIC in 
NHTSA not including a lettering height requirement if the ISO symbol is 
used, but including a lettering height requirement if only text is 
used. However, the agency is not prepared to implement any changes to 
the existing height requirement if only text is used and does not 
believe that there is an inconsistency.
    This issue was not included in the NPRM, and there are factors the 
agency would need to consider and request public comment on should it 
decide to change or remove this requirement. As stated in the 2012 
final rule implementing the requirement, use of a 3/32 inch (2.4 mm) 
letter height is consistent with other FMVSS.\11\ The existing height 
requirement is also consistent with the requirement for the split 
service brake failure telltale, which has been present in FMVSS No. 122 
for many years.\12\ Support for maintaining that particular height 
requirement also comes from a NHTSA research report, ``Specification of 
Control Illumination Limits'' (DOT-HS-4-00864, 1974), which found that 
letters that were 0.09 inch or 2.3 mm could not be read by older 
drivers, regardless of letter brightness or background contrast. In 
addition, any change to the letter height when the ISO symbol is not 
used would not have any harmonization benefits. That is, the minimum 
lettering height requirement for this option has no bearing on 
consistency with GTR No. 12 because the GTR only specifies use of the 
ISO symbol and does not provide the option of using the text ``ABS,'' 
``Anti-lock,'' or ``Antilock.'' Thus, NHTSA is retaining, at this time, 
the existing height requirement for the text ``ABS,'' ``Anti-lock,'' or 
``Antilock'' telltale when the ISO symbol is not used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 77 FR 51649. FMVSS No. 122 S5.1.9(d) and S5.1.10.1 require 
3/32-inch lettering. FMVSS Nos. 120 and 110 also contain 3/32-inch 
lettering requirements. As a comparison, under FMVSS No. 135 the 
warning lamp for ABS in light vehicles must include the words 
``Antilock,'' ``Anti-lock'' or the abbreviation ``ABS'' and must be 
at least \1/8\ inch (or 3.2 mm) in height.
    \12\ The requirement for 3/32 inch letters for the split service 
brake failure has been in place since FMVSS No. 122 was issued in 
1972. 37 FR 5034 (March 9, 1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, NHTSA does not believe this is inconsistent with NHTSA's 
conclusion that a height requirement is unnecessary when the ISO symbol 
is used because recognition of the ISO symbol comes not only from the 
letters ``ABS,'' but also from shape of the symbol as a whole. The ISO 
symbol is a graphic representation of a brake drum with letters inside 
of it, and the entire symbol is illuminated in the event of an ABS 
failure condition. Also, the symbol as a whole will likely be 
significantly larger than the 2.4-millimeter-high letters that can be 
used in lieu of the symbol. For example, as noted above, Honda informed 
NHTSA that the typical height of the ISO symbol on its production 
motorcycles equipped with ABS is 7 millimeters, and the letters ``ABS'' 
are approximately 2 millimeters high. This suggests that the typical 
height of the ISO symbol will be appreciably larger than the minimum 
height requirement for the ABS telltale if the ISO symbol is not used. 
Accordingly, NHTSA concludes that it is appropriate to view the need 
for a height requirement for telltales that use the ISO symbol 
differently from telltales that rely exclusively on lettering to warn 
of ABS failure.

D. Technical Correction

    NHTSA received two comments that addressed a technical correction 
included in the NPRM, and those comments supported the correction. The 
agency is adopting the correction of the

[[Page 1295]]

error in FMVSS No. 122 S6.3.2(d), which stated that category 3-5 
motorcycles are to be tested with a brake actuation force of <=350 N 
and category 3-4 motorcycles are tested with a brake actuation force of 
<=500 N. The agency is amending FMVSS No. 122 S6.3.2(d) such that the 
category 3-4 motorcycles are tested with a brake actuation force of 
<=350 N and category 3-5 motorcycles are tested with a brake actuation 
force of <=500 N.

E. Removing the Reference to FMVSS No. 101

    FMVSS No. 101, Controls and displays, sets forth standardized 
symbols, lettering, and colors for various telltales, notifications, 
and warning lamps in passenger vehicles. In the NPRM, the agency 
proposed removing the reference to the ABS malfunction telltale 
specified in FMVSS No. 101 from FMVSS No. 122 S5.1.10.2(c) because 
FMVSS No. 101 does not apply to motorcycles. The agency proposed to 
change FMVSS No. 122 so that it references FMVSS No. 123 instead of 
FMVSS No. 101 and to insert the ABS telltale specification into Table 3 
of FMVSS No. 123.
    NHTSA received only one comment, from the MIC, on that proposed 
change. The comment favored the change because it is consistent with 
GTR No. 12, the global technical regulation concerning the location, 
identification and operation of motorcycle controls, telltales, and 
indicators. The agency is amending FMVSS No. 122 S5.1.10.2(c) by 
replacing the reference to FMVSS No. 101 with a reference to FMVSS No. 
123. The agency is amending FMVSS No. 123 by adding the ISO ABS 
malfunction telltale into FMVSS No. 123, Table 3.

F. Clarifying the Illumination Requirement for the ABS Telltale

    NHTSA received one comment from Harley-Davidson suggesting that the 
agency include an illumination requirement in FMVSS No. 123 similar to 
the requirement in FMVSS No. 101 S5.3.3(a) which provides that 
telltales must be ``visible to the driver under daylight and nighttime 
driving conditions.'' Harley-Davidson stated that inserting such 
language in FMVSS No. 123 would align with a similar illumination 
requirement specified in GTR No. 12.
    The agency recognizes that there is no illumination requirement 
that applies to FMVSS No. 123. However, FMVSS No. 122 S1.10.2(a) 
contains a provision which requires the warning lamp to be illuminated 
by activation of the ignition switch and extinguished when the 
diagnostic check has been completed. The warning lamp is also required 
to remain on while a failure condition exists whenever the ignition 
switch is in the ``on'' position. While this illumination requirement 
in FMVSS No. 122 is not as detailed as the requirement in FMVSS No. 101 
that Harley-Davidson suggested using, it applies regardless of external 
lighting conditions, and it seems likely that manufacturers will 
continue to equip motorcycles with an ABS malfunction telltale that is 
visible in both daylight and nighttime driving conditions, as they do 
in current practice. More critically, adding the suggested language to 
FMVSS No. 123 would be outside the scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, 
the agency is not amending FMVSS No. 123 to add an illumination 
requirement.

IV. Additional Technical Correction

    On August 17, 2005, (70 FR 48295) NHTSA published a final rule 
amending FMVSS No. 101, Controls and displays, to modernize the 
standard. The final rule changed the tables in FMVSS No. 101 by 
reorganizing the tables and adding additional information. As a result, 
the table data for antilock brake systems was moved from Table 2 to 
Table 1. The final rule, however, did not update the cross references 
located in other standards. FMVSS No. 135, Light vehicle brake systems, 
contains a reference to Table 2 of FMVSS No. 101, which should now be a 
reference to Table 1 of FMVSS No. 101. This rulemaking makes the 
technical correction to update Standard No. 135 to include the correct 
reference.

V. Effective Date and Administrative Procedure Act Requirements

    A rule ordinarily cannot take effect earlier than 30 days after it 
is published pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) unless the rule falls under 
one of three enumerated exceptions. In addition, 49 U.S.C. 30111(d) 
provides that a Federal motor vehicle safety standard may not become 
effective before the 180th day after the standard is prescribed or 
later than one year after it is prescribed except when a different 
effective date is, for good cause shown, in the public interest.
    This rule does not impose any substantive requirements. Instead, it 
removes a restriction by allowing manufacturers of motorcycles to use 
the ISO symbol which is specified in GTR No. 12. Since this final rule 
merely provides motorcycle manufacturers the option of using an ISO 
symbol for the ABS malfunction telltale and thus greater flexibility in 
meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 122, the rule falls under the 
exception at 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) as a rule that relieves a restriction. 
In addition, NHTSA believes that the public interest would be served by 
not delaying the effective date. This final rule changes NHTSA's FMVSS 
to reflect NHTSA's current policy to allow the use of an 
internationally recognized symbol as the antilock brake system (ABS) 
malfunction telltale on motorcycles and makes technical corrections. 
NHTSA anticipates that the impact of this rule will be small and 
limited to providing greater flexibility to manufacturers. Therefore, 
the agency finds that there is good cause under 49 U.S.C. 30111 to make 
these amendments effective immediately.
    This final rule makes one technical change to the regulatory text 
that was not proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking. The final 
rule merely adjusts an outdated and incorrect cross-reference in a 
Table in FMVSS No. 135. The technical correction, thus, does not make 
any substantive change to the standard and the agency has determined 
that notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
553(b) are unnecessary for this technical correction.

VI. 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 administrative procedures at 49 CFR part 5. This 
rulemaking is not considered significant and was not reviewed by the 
Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' Given the minimal impact of the 
rule, we have not prepared a full regulatory evaluation. The agency has 
further determined that the impact of this final rule is so minimal 
that the preparation of a full regulatory evaluation is not required.
    NHTSA believes this final rule to allow the use of the ISO ABS 
malfunction symbol without a minimum letter height would not impact 
motorcycle safety since the rule has no effect on ABS effectiveness and 
adoption rates. Further, the agency does not believe that these minor 
changes to the telltale will have any effect on a rider's ability to 
understand the telltale. However, we estimate that it would positively 
impact manufacturers by eliminating the need to incur costs to redesign 
ABS telltales.
    The availability of ABS either as standard or optional equipment on

[[Page 1296]]

motorcycles varies among manufacturers. The agency does not have access 
to a detailed make and model breakdown of the number of motorcycles 
produced for sale in the U.S. that are equipped with ABS and that use 
ISO ABS symbols and do not comply with letter height requirements that 
were included in NHTSA's 2012 final rule. Based on communications with 
members of the motorcycle industry, the agency believes that some 
manufacturers made design changes even after NHTSA announced its non-
enforcement policy in 2014. Consequently, some of the motorcycle 
manufacturers who used ISO ABS symbols that did not comply with the 
letter height requirement when it went into effect in 2014 now use ISO 
ABS symbols that meet the letter height requirement.
    Based on communication with motorcycle manufacturers, NHTSA is 
aware of at least one large manufacturer and two small-volume 
manufacturers that currently use ISO symbols that do not meet the 
letter height requirement. One of the small-volume manufacturers 
estimated that it would cost approximately $150,000 to redesign their 
ABS telltales on motorcycles for sale in the U.S. to comply with the 
letter height requirement. This estimated cost includes tooling, 
engineering resources, and recertification and homologation. This one-
time cost for manufacturers would have been allocated over a number of 
years of production and was expected to have minimal effect on the 
consumer price of motorcycles. NHTSA estimates that this final rule 
prevents a cost to motorcycle manufacturers of at least $450,000 that 
manufacturers would have had to incur between the publication date of 
the final rule and its effective date if NHTSA had not announced the 
non-enforcement policy. This is based on estimated one-time design cost 
of $150,000 per manufacturer and information from three manufacturers 
who use ISO symbols that do not meet the letter height requirement. 
NHTSA believes the actual cost incurred would likely have been larger 
had all manufacturers complied with the 2012 rule, but does not have 
sufficient information to estimate how many more manufacturers would 
benefit from this final rule and how their behavior would or would not 
have changed had NHTSA determined to keep the original requirements in 
effect and withdraw the non-enforcement policy.

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)). No 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency 
certifies the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act to require 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.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act and certifies that it will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
This final rule will directly impact manufacturers of motorcycles 
equipped with ABS. Although NHTSA believes many manufacturers affected 
by this final rule are considered small businesses, we do not believe 
this rule will have a significant economic impact on those 
manufacturers. This final rule will not impose any costs upon 
manufacturers and may prevent costs from being incurred. This final 
rule will relieve motorcycle manufacturers of the burden and costs 
associated with changing from using the ISO symbol to using text of a 
minimum height to indicate an ABS malfunction.

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 does 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 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.''
    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 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 Orders 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

[[Page 1297]]

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 13771 (Regulatory Reform)

    NHTSA has reviewed this final rule for compliance with Executive 
Order 13771 (``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs''), 
which requires Federal agencies to offset the number and cost of new 
regulations through the repeal, revocation, or revision of existing 
regulations. As provided in OMB Memorandum M-17-21 (``Implementing E.O. 
13771''), a ``regulatory action'' subject to Executive Order 13771 is a 
significant regulatory action as defined in section 3(f) of Executive 
Order 12866 that has been finalized and that imposes total costs 
greater than zero. For the reasons identified in the previous sections, 
this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866 and thus does not require any offsetting deregulatory 
action. In fact, this rule is a ``deregulatory action'' under Executive 
Order 13771 because it reduces regulatory burden on industry by 
allowing additional compliance flexibility and improving international 
harmonization.

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; 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 Executive order, NHTSA notes 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.

F. 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.

G. 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 collection requirement associated with this final rule.

H. 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 final rule allows the use of a symbol from an international 
voluntary standard.

I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more 
than $100 million 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 final rule would not result in any expenditure by State, 
local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 
million, adjusted for inflation.

J. 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.

[[Page 1298]]

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 may 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).

M. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule 
as not a ``major rule,'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571

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

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as 
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 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 
(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 (49 CFR 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 1299]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA21.013


[[Page 1300]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA21.014


0
4. Amend Sec.  571.135 by revising S5.5.5(d)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  571.135   Standard No. 135; Light Vehicle Brake Systems.

* * * * *
    S5.5.5. Labeling.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) If a separate indicator is provided for the condition specified 
in S5.5.1(b), the letters and background shall be of contrasting 
colors, one of which is yellow. The indicator shall be labeled with the 
words ``Antilock'' or ``Anti-lock'' or ``ABS''; or ``Brake 
Proportioning,'' in accordance with Table 1 of Standard No. 101.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
1.95 and 501.4.
James C. Owens,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-27375 Filed 1-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C