Federal Register, Volume 79 Issue 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 2014)

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70491-70497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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