1292 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1 77 FR 51649. 

2A 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. 

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

4 49 CFR 571.121, S5.1.6.2. 

5We 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). 

FEMA has submitted this final rule to 

the Congress and to GAO pursuant to 

the CRA. The Office of Management and 

Budget has determined that this rule is 

a ‘‘major rule’’ within the meaning of 

the CRA. As this rule contains FEMA’s 

finding for good cause that notice and 

public procedure are impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest, there is not a required delay in 

the effective date. See 5 U.S.C. 808(2). 

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 333 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Business and industry, 

Government contracts, National defense, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Strategic and critical 

materials. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the interim rule adding 44 

CFR part 333, which was published at 

85 FR 28500 on May 13, 2020, is 

adopted as final with the following 

changes: 

PART 333—EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES AND 

ALLOCATIONS SYSTEM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 333 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 6 U.S.C. 313, 314; 50 U.S.C. 

4511, et seq.; E.O. 13603, 77 FR 16651; E.O. 

13909, 85 FR 16227; E.O. 13911, 85 FR 

18403; DHS Delegation 09052, Rev. 00 (Jan. 

3, 2017); DHS Delegation 09052 Rev 00.1 

(Apr. 1, 2020). 

§ 333.20 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 333.20, amend paragraph (c) by 

removing ‘‘1660–NW122’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘1660–0149.’’ 

Pete Gaynor, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2020–29287 Filed 1–7–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–19–P 

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

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. 

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

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 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 1293 

9The 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/ECETRANS-180a12e.pdf. However, this rulemaking is 

not intended to implement provisions of GTR No. 

12. 

10The comments may be viewed at http://

www.regulations.gov in Docket No. NHTSA–2014– 

0117. 

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. 

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 HarleyDavidson Motor Company (HarleyDavidson), 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 ‘‘Antilock’’ 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 HarleyDavidson, 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

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, HarleyDavidson, 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. 

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 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with RULESER08JA21.012</GPH>
1294 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

12The 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). 

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 HarleyDavidson’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. 

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 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 crossreference 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 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with RULES
1296 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nonenforcement 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 nonenforcement 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 nonidentical 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 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with RULES
1298 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

■ 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 (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 (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. 

* * * * * 

■ 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 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 1299 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with RULESER08JA21.013</GPH>
1300 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 4. Amend § 571.135 by revising 

S5.5.5(d)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 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 ‘‘Antilock’’ 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 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 200227–0066] 

RTID 0648–XA778 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by 

Catcher/Processors Using Trawl Gear 

in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed 

fishing for Pacific cod by American 

Fisheries Act (AFA) trawl catcher/ 

processors in the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands management area 

(BSAI). This action is necessary to 

prevent exceeding the A season 

apportionment of the 2021 Pacific cod 

total allowable catch (TAC) allocated to 

AFA trawl catcher/processors in the 

BSAI. 

DATES: Effective 1200 hours, Alaska 

local time (A.l.t.), January 20, 2021, 

through 1200 hours, A.l.t., April 1, 

2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Krista Milani, 907–581–2062. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fishery in the 

BSAI exclusive economic zone 

according to the Fishery Management 

Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Islands Management Area 

(FMP) prepared by the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council under 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act. Regulations governing fishing by 

U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP 

appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 

and 50 CFR part 679. 

The A season apportionment of the 

2021 Pacific cod TAC allocated to AFA 

trawl catcher/processors in the BSAI is 

1,928 metric tons (mt) as established by 

the final 2020 and 2021 harvest 

specifications for groundfish in the 

BSAI (85 FR 13553, March 9, 2020) and 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with RULESER08JA21.014</GPH>