Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 70491 

1 77 FR 51649. 

2The 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). 

3A 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. 

regulated areas as determined by the 

prevailing conditions. 

(3) Persons and vessels may request 

authorization to enter, transit through, 

anchor in, or remain within the 

regulated areas by contacting the 

Captain of the Port St. Petersburg by 

telephone at (727) 824–7506, or a 

designated representative via VHF radio 

on channel 16. 

(4) If authorization is granted by the 

Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a 

designated representative, all persons 

and vessels receiving such authorization 

must comply with the instructions of 

the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or 

a designated representative. 

(d) Enforcement Date. This rule will 

be enforced from 11:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 

on the first Saturday of February. 

Dated: November 3, 2014. 

G.D. Case, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port St. Petersburg. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28051 Filed 11–25–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0117] 

RIN 2127–AL48 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Motorcycle Brake Systems; 

Motorcycle Controls and Displays 

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

Among the performance requirements 

adopted as part of the revised FMVSS 

No. 122 are tests for antilock brake 

system (ABS) performance. Prior to the 

August 2012 final rule, FMVSS No. 122 

contained no ABS performance 

requirements. Although FMVSS No. 122 

does not require motorcycles to be 

equipped with ABS, it includes test 

procedures and minimum performance 

requirements to assess the stability and 

stopping performance of motorcycles 

that are equipped with ABS. The new 

tests, adopted from the GTR, include 

stopping distance performance 

requirements on high and low friction 

surfaces, wheel lock tests on high and 

low friction surfaces, and wheel lock 

tests for high-to-low friction and low-tohigh friction surface transitions. The 

new performance requirements also 

include a performance test related to the 

failure of the ABS system. These new 

requirements are mandatory for most 

motorcycles manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2014. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

70492 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

4See, e.g., 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. 

6See 49 CFR 571.122a, S5.1.3.1(d). 

7The 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 any other provision of 

GTR No. 12. 

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

Several months after the agency 

published the August 2012 final rule, 

we were contacted by the Motorcycle 

Industry Council, Honda, and HarleyDavidson. These organizations informed 

NHTSA that ABS-equipped motorcycles 

that they produce already have ABS 

malfunction warning lamps and that the 

current practice is to use the 

International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) symbol for ABS 

malfunction, which is pictured in 

Figure 1. The ISO symbol incorporates 

the letters ‘‘ABS’’ consistent with the 

requirement in FMVSS No. 122. 

However, the ISO symbol has no size 

requirement associated with it, nor is 

there a specification regarding the size 

of the lettering within the symbol. 

Honda informed NHTSA that the 

typical height of the symbol on a 

production motorcycle equipped with 

ABS is 7 millimeters, and the letters 

‘‘ABS’’ are approximately 2 millimeters 

high, though the dimensions may vary. 

We do not have information on the 

range of symbol or letter sizes among 

various makes and models, nor are we 

are aware of any standard that specifies 

symbol or letter size. 

However, based on the information 

provided by Honda and conversations 

that the agency has had with the 

Motorcycle Industry Council and 

Harley-Davidson, we believe that, in 

order to comply with the letter height 

requirement for the ABS malfunction 

telltale identifier in FMVSS No. 122, 

manufacturers would have to enlarge 

the symbol or the telltale lamp 

considerably so that the letters ‘‘ABS’’ 

are 3⁄32 inch (2.4 millimeters) in height. 

Alternatively, they could add a separate 

label using ‘‘ABS’’ or ‘‘Antilock’’ or 

‘‘Anti-Lock’’ that are the specified 

minimum height in place of, or in 

addition to, the ISO symbol. Motorcycle 

manufacturers assert that this would 

constitute a costly redesign of the 

telltale or instrument panel on many 

ABS-equipped motorcycles without any 

discernible safety benefit as a result of 

the redesign. 

Upon consideration of the concerns 

raised by the Motorcycle Industry 

Council, Honda, and Harley-Davidson, 

the agency is proposing to remove the 

letter height specification for the ABS 

malfunction telltale if manufacturers 

use the ISO symbol for ABS 

malfunction. We are also proposing to 

remove the reference to the ABS 

malfunction telltale specified in FMVSS 

No. 101 because that standard does not 

apply to motorcycles. Instead, we are 

proposing to place the specification for 

the ABS malfunction telltale in FMVSS 

No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and 

Displays, which is the corresponding 

FMVSS applicable to motorcycles.7

However, if only text is used for the 

ABS malfunction telltale, the minimum 

letter height requirement would still 

apply. 

We have no reason to believe that 

using the ISO symbol in lieu of text 

labeling at a minimum height would 

affect the safety of motorcycles or the 

general public. The types of failure 

indicated by the ABS malfunction 

telltale are electronic failures that result 

in the loss of ABS functionality, but do 

not cause loss of braking ability. As 

stated above, FMVSS No. 122 contains 

a performance requirement to ensure 

minimum braking capability in the 

event of an ABS system malfunction. 

Moreover, the agency has minimum 

performance requirements to ensure that 

a minimum level of braking capability is 

maintained even if there is a more 

severe system failure such as a brake 

fluid leak. 

We request comment on whether 

there should be a minimum height 

requirement for an ABS malfunction 

telltale that uses the ISO symbol. Honda 

informed NHTSA that the height of the 

symbol on a motorcycle equipped with 

ABS is typically 7 millimeters. We 

request comment on whether a 

minimum height requirement for the 

ISO symbol should be applied and, if so, 

how large the symbol should be. 

Specifically, we ask whether the 7 

millimeter height suggested by Honda as 

a minimum height (or a different height) 

would ensure readability without 

requiring a redesign of the telltale or 

instrument panel on many ABSequipped motorcycles. 

In view of this proposal, it is the 

intent of the agency not to enforce the 

minimum height requirement for the 

ABS malfunction telltale for any 

motorcycle that uses the ISO symbol for 

ABS malfunction set forth above in 

Figure 1. We intend to continue this 

nonenforcement policy until a final rule 

implementing this proposal becomes 

effective. This nonenforcement policy 

will provide relief to motorcycle 

manufacturers that use the ISO symbol 

for ABS system malfunction, but could 

not meet the September 1, 2014 

deadline for compliance without 

incurring expenses associated with 

redesign of the telltale or instrument 

panel. Again, we have no information 

that adverse safety consequences would 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP26NO14.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 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 online instructions provided. 

You may download the comments. 

The comments are imaged documents, 

in either TIFF or PDF format. Please 

note that even after the comment closing 

date, we will continue to file relevant 

information in the Docket as it becomes 

available. Further, some people may 

submit late comments. Accordingly, we 

recommend that you periodically search 

the Docket for new material. 

You may also see the comments at the 

address and times given near the 

beginning of this document under 

ADDRESSES. 

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866, Executive 

Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures 

NHTSA has considered the impact of 

this rulemaking action under Executive 

Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, 

and the Department of Transportation’s 

regulatory policies and procedures. This 

rulemaking is not considered significant 

and was not reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget under E.O. 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ The rulemaking action has 

also been determined not to be 

significant under the Department’s 

regulatory policies and procedures. 

The effects of the proposed changes 

are so minimal that the preparation of 

a full regulatory evaluation is not 

required. We believe that this NPRM, if 

adopted, would not impose any costs 

upon manufacturers or vehicle 

purchasers. It would, however, prevent 

motorcycle manufacturers from 

incurring costs associated with redesign 

of the ABS malfunction telltale or 

instrument panel that were not 

intended. This proposal is not expect to 

have any impact on safety. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a notice of rulemaking for 

any proposed or final rule, it must 

prepare and make available for public 

comment a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of the 

rule on small entities (i.e., small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions). The 

Small Business Administration’s 

regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a 

small business, in part, as a business 

entity ‘‘which operates primarily within 

the United States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

70494 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

No regulatory flexibility analysis is 

required if the head of an agency 

certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide a statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

NHTSA has considered the effects of 

this NPRM under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. I certify that this NPRM 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This proposed rule would 

directly impact manufacturers of 

motorcycles equipped with ABS. We do 

not believe this NPRM will have a 

significant economic impact on those 

manufacturers. This NPRM would not 

require any action by manufacturers, but 

would prevent motorcycle 

manufacturers from incurring costs 

associated with redesign of the ABS 

malfunction telltale or instrument 

panel. 

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined today’s final 

rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and 

concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The agency has concluded that 

the rulemaking would not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

warrant consultation with State and 

local officials or the preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement. 

The final rule would not have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ 

NHTSA rules can preempt in two 

ways. First, the National Traffic and 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an 

express preemption provision: When a 

motor vehicle safety standard is in effect 

under this chapter, a State or a political 

subdivision of a State may prescribe or 

continue in effect a standard applicable 

to the same aspect of performance of a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment only if the standard is 

identical to the standard prescribed 

under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 

30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command 

by Congress that preempts any nonidentical State legislative and 

administrative law addressing the same 

aspect of performance. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 571 

of Title 49 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.95. 

■ 2. Amend § 571.122 by revising 

S5.1.10.2(c) and S6.3.2(d)(2)(i) and 

(d)(2)(ii) to read as follows: 

§ 571.122 Standard No. 122; Motorcycle 

brake systems. 

* * * * * 

S5.1.10.2 Antilock brake system 

warning lamps. 

* * * * * 

(c) The warning lamp shall be labeled 

in accordance with the specifications in 

Table 3 of Standard No. 123 (§ 571.123) 

for ‘‘ABS Malfunction’’ (Item No. 13). 

* * * * * 

S6.3.2 Test conditions and 

procedure. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) ≤350 N for motorcycle categories 

3–1, 3–2, 3–3, and 3–4. 

(ii) ≤500 N for motorcycle category 3– 

5. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 571.123 by revising Table 

3 to read as follows: 

§ 571.123 Standard No. 123; Motorcycle 

controls and displays. 

* * * * * 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

70496 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP26NO14.007</GPH>

No. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Table 3 

Motorcycle Control and Display Identification Reqmrements 

Column l 

Equipment 

Ignition 

Supplemental Engine 

Stop (Off, Run) 

Manual Choke or 

Mixture Enrichment 

Electric Starter 

Headlamp Upper-Lower 

Beam Control 

Horn 

Turn Signal 

Speedometer 

Neutral Indicator 

Column 2 

Control and Display 

Identification Word 

Ignition 

Engine Stop 

Choke or Enrichener 

Lights 

Horn 

Turn 

MPH 

OR 

MPH and kmlh 5 

Neutral 

Column 3 

Control and Display 

Identification Symbol 

(i) 

=o 2

-

= JIIIIIII!!o 

~ :::::::. 

N 

Column4 

Identification at 

Appropriate Position of 

Control and Display 

Off 

Off, Run 

Start 1 

Hi, Lo 

L,R 

MPH 4 

MPH, kmlh 5 
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 70497 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 

19, 2014 under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.95, 501.5, and 501.8. 

R. Ryan Posten, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27871 Filed 11–25–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

RIN 0648–BE27 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; 

Amendment 24 to the Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Fishery Management Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of 

proposed fishery management plan 

amendment; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Council) has submitted Amendment 24 

to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

Management Plan (PCGFMP) for 

Secretarial review. Amendment 24 

would modify the PCGFMP to 

implement default harvest control rules, 

make minor changes to clarify routine 

management measure adjustment and 

implementation procedures, add two 

rockfish species to the PCGFMP, and 

designate several species as Ecosystem 

Component Species. 

DATES: Comments on Amendment 24 

must be received on or before January 

26, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2014–0138, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014- 

0138, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional 

Administrator, 7600 Sand Point Way, 

NE., Seattle, WA, 98115. 

• Fax: 206–525–4736; Attn: Sarah 

Williams 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. 

Information relevant to Amendment 

24, which includes a draft 

environmental impact statement (EIS), a 

regulatory impact review (RIR), and an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

(IRFA) are available for public review 

during business hours at the office of 

the Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Council), at 7700 NE Ambassador 

Place, Portland, OR 97220, phone: 503– 

820–2280, or at www.pcouncil.org. 

Copies of additional reports referred to 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP26NO14.008</GPH>