[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1292-1300]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27375]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0110]
RIN 2127-AL48

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

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

ACTION: Final rule; technical corrections.

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

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FMVSS No. 122 and an outdated table reference found in FMVSS No. 135.

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of the November 2014 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

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

    \1\ 77 FR 51649.
    \2\ A copy of GTR No. 3 was placed in the docket for the NPRM
associated with the final rule revising FMVSS No. 122. See Docket
No. NHTSA-2008-0150-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revised FMVSS No. 122 adopted performance requirements for
antilock brake system (ABS) performance. Although FMVSS No. 122 as
amended in 2012 does not require motorcycles to be equipped with ABS,
it includes performance requirements for motorcycles that are equipped
with ABS. These requirements apply to motorcycles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2014.
    Both the GTR and the 2008 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for
FMVSS No. 122 \3\ specified that all motorcycles equipped with ABS must
also be fitted with a yellow warning lamp that illuminates whenever
there is a malfunction that affects the generation or transmission of
signals in the motorcycle's ABS system. The prior version of FMVSS No.
122 did not include any requirements for an ABS malfunction telltale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    \4\ 49 CFR 571.121, S<IP_ADDRESS>.
    \5\ We referenced FMVSS No. 101, notwithstanding the fact that
it does not apply to motorcycles, because it had an existing
labeling requirement for ABS malfunction in Table 1.
    \6\ 49 CFR 571.122, S<IP_ADDRESS>(c).
    \7\ 49 CFR 571.122, S<IP_ADDRESS>(c).
    \8\ 49 CFR 571.122a, S<IP_ADDRESS>(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Honda informed NHTSA that the typical height of the symbol on a
production motorcycle equipped with ABS is 7 millimeters, and the
letters ``ABS'' are approximately 2 millimeters high, though the
dimensions may vary. NHTSA lacks any other information on the range of
symbol or letter sizes among various makes and models, and is unaware
of a standardized symbol size or letter size to which manufacturers
adhere.
    According to the information provided by Honda and conversations
that the agency had with the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. (MIC)
and Harley-Davidson Motor Company (Harley-Davidson), to comply with the
letter height requirement for the ABS malfunction telltale identifier
in FMVSS No. 122, manufacturers would have to enlarge the telltale
considerably so that the letters ``ABS'' contained within the ISO
symbol are at least 3/32 inch (2.4 millimeters) in height.
Alternatively, they would have to add a separate label using ``ABS'' or
``Antilock'' or ``Anti-lock'' displayed at the specified minimum height
in place of, or in addition to, the ISO symbol. Motorcycle
manufacturers stated that this would constitute a costly redesign of
the telltale or instrument panel on many ABS-equipped motorcycles
without any discernible safety benefit from the redesign.
    Upon consideration of the concerns raised by the MIC, Honda, and
Harley-Davidson, the agency issued an NPRM on November 26, 2014 (79 FR
70491). The agency proposed removing the letter height specification
for the ABS malfunction telltale if manufacturers use the ISO symbol
for ABS malfunction. However, if only text is used for the ABS
malfunction telltale, the minimum letter height requirement would still
apply. We also proposed removing the reference to the specifications
for ABS malfunction telltales in Table 1 of FMVSS No. 101 because that
standard does not apply to motorcycles. Instead, we proposed adding
both the FMVSS No. 101 telltale specifications and the ISO ABS
malfunction symbol to Table 3 of FMVSS No. 123, Motorcycle controls and
displays, which is the relevant FMVSS applicable to motorcycles.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The inclusion of the ISO symbol for ABS malfunction in FMVSS
No. 123 is also consistent with the recently adopted GTR No. 12,
related to the location, identification, and operation of motorcycle
controls, telltales, and indicators. See http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29registry/ECE-TRANS-180a12e.pdf. However, this rulemaking is not intended to
implement provisions of GTR No. 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency sought comments on whether there should be a minimum
height requirement for an ABS malfunction telltale that uses the ISO
symbol and, if so, how large the symbol should be. Specifically, we
asked whether the 7-millimeter height suggested by Honda as a minimum
height (or a different height) would ensure readability without
requiring a redesign of the telltale or instrument panel on many ABS-
equipped motorcycles.
    Furthermore, in light of the proposed changes, the agency announced
in the NPRM that it was adopting a policy not to enforce the minimum
height requirement for the ABS malfunction telltale for any motorcycle
that uses the ISO symbol for ABS malfunction until a final rule
implementing the proposal became effective. This non-enforcement policy
provided relief to motorcycle manufacturers that use the ISO symbol for
ABS malfunction but that could not meet the September 1, 2014, deadline
for compliance without redesigning the telltale or instrument panel.
Again, we have no information indicating that adverse safety
consequences would result from allowing motorcycle manufacturers to use
the ISO symbol for the ABS malfunction telltale as an alternative to
the currently permissible ABS malfunction telltales.
    We also proposed correction of an error in FMVSS No. 122. In
paragraph S6.3.2(d), which contains the test procedure for the dry stop
test with a single brake control actuated, the brake actuation force
specified for motorcycles in categories 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, and 3-5 is
specified as <= 350 N and, for category 3-4 motorcycles, <= 500 N.
However, the higher actuation force was intended for category 3-5
motorcycles rather than category 3-4 motorcycles. We proposed this
correction in the NPRM to be consistent with GTR No. 3 and with NHTSA's
intention in the August 2012 final rule.

II. Summary of Comments

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

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

III. Response to Comments

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

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

functionality is compromised while the overall brake system
functionality is maintained. Motorcycle operators who are unfamiliar
with the symbol may then look up its meaning in the instruction manual
when they are able after seeing the notification on the display.
Concerns about whether an ABS-related telltale is instantly
recognizable might be of more concern in the context of telltales that
illuminate because the ABS is activated, but the malfunction telltale,
as explained, serves a different purpose. Currently, there is no
requirement for motorcycles to have telltales that indicate when ABS is
activated, and drivers are usually notified of an ABS activation by the
haptic feedback (vibration or pulsing) caused by the ABS cycling.
    As stated in the NPRM, the agency has no reason to believe that
using the ISO symbol in lieu of text labeling at a minimum height would
affect the safety of motorcycles or the public. The types of failure
indicated by the ABS malfunction telltale are electronic failures that
result in the loss of ABS functionality, but do not cause loss of
foundation braking ability. FMVSS No. 122 contains a performance
requirement to ensure minimum braking capability in the event of an ABS
system malfunction. Moreover, the agency has minimum performance
requirements to ensure that a minimum level of braking capability is
maintained even if there is a more severe system failure such as a
brake fluid leak. Therefore, NHTSA is adopting the proposal in the NPRM
to allow the ISO symbol as an alternative to the text ``ABS,'' ``Anti-
lock,'' or ``Antilock.''

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. Technical Correction

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

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 S<IP_ADDRESS>(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 S<IP_ADDRESS>(c) by
replacing the reference to FMVSS No. 101 with a reference to FMVSS No.
123. The agency is amending FMVSS No. 123 by adding the ISO ABS
malfunction telltale into FMVSS No. 123, Table 3.

F. Clarifying the Illumination Requirement for the ABS Telltale

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

IV. Additional Technical Correction

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

V. Effective Date and Administrative Procedure Act Requirements

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

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

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

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of
Transportation's administrative procedures at 49 CFR part 5. This
rulemaking is not considered significant and was not reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' Given the minimal impact of the
rule, we have not prepared a full regulatory evaluation. The agency has
further determined that the impact of this final rule is so minimal
that the preparation of a full regulatory evaluation is not required.
    NHTSA believes this final rule to allow the use of the ISO ABS
malfunction symbol without a minimum letter height would not impact
motorcycle safety since the rule has no effect on ABS effectiveness and
adoption rates. Further, the agency does not believe that these minor
changes to the telltale will have any effect on a rider's ability to
understand the telltale. However, we estimate that it would positively
impact manufacturers by eliminating the need to incur costs to redesign
ABS telltales.
    The availability of ABS either as standard or optional equipment on

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

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of
the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and certifies that it will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule will directly impact manufacturers of motorcycles
equipped with ABS. Although NHTSA believes many manufacturers affected
by this final rule are considered small businesses, we do not believe
this rule will have a significant economic impact on those
manufacturers. This final rule will not impose any costs upon
manufacturers and may prevent costs from being incurred. This final
rule will relieve motorcycle manufacturers of the burden and costs
associated with changing from using the ISO symbol to using text of a
minimum height to indicate an ABS malfunction.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives
is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded
that the rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule does not have
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision:
When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a
State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue
in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C.
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any
non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the
same aspect of performance.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that
NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon an actual conflict between an
FMVSS and the higher standard that would effectively be imposed on
motor vehicle manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort
judgment against the manufacturer, notwithstanding the manufacturer's
compliance with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards
established by an FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort
cause of action that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle
manufacturers will generally not be preempted. However, if and when
such a conflict does exist--for example, when the standard at issue is
both a minimum and a maximum standard--the State common law tort cause
of action is impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor
Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
    Pursuant to Executive Orders 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this rule could or should preempt State common law causes of
action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the
preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the

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.

K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

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

L. Privacy Act

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

M. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571

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

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

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  571.122 by revising S<IP_ADDRESS>(c) and S6.3.2(d)(2)(i) and
(ii) to read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Antilock brake system warning lamps.
* * * * *
    (c) The warning lamp shall be labeled in accordance with the
specifications in Table 3 of Standard No. 123 (49 CFR 571.123) for
``ABS Malfunction'' (Item No. 13).
* * * * *
    S6.3.2 Test conditions and procedure.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) <=350 N for motorcycle categories 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4.
    (ii) <=500 N for motorcycle category 3-5.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  571.123 by revising Table 3 to read as follows:

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA21.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA21.014

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

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

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

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


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5783-5784]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02593]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-6145]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Dispute Resolution
Procedures for Science-Based Decisions on Products Regulated by the
Center for Veterinary Medicine

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by March
12, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to [email protected]. All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0566.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Dispute Resolution Procedures for Science-Based Decisions on Products
Regulated by the Center for Veterinary Medicine--21 CFR 10.75

OMB Control Number 0910-0566--Extension

    The Center for Veterinary Medicine's (CVM's) Guidance for Industry
(GIF) #79, ``Dispute Resolution Procedures for Science-Based Decisions
on Products Regulated by the Center for Veterinary Medicine'' (https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/UCM052393.pdf), describes the process by which CVM
formally resolves disputes relating to scientific controversies. A
scientific controversy involves issues concerning a specific product
regulated by CVM related to matters of technical expertise and requires
specialized education, training, or experience to be understood and
resolved. The guidance details information on how CVM intends to apply
provisions of existing regulations regarding internal review of Agency
decisions. In addition, the guidance outlines the established
procedures for persons who are sponsors, applicants, or manufacturers
of animal drugs or other products regulated by CVM that wish to submit
a request for review of a scientific dispute. When a sponsor,
applicant, or manufacturer has a scientific disagreement with a written
decision by CVM, they may submit a request for a review of that
decision by following the established procedures discussed in the
guidance.
    CVM encourages applicants to begin the resolution of science-based
disputes with discussions with the review team/group, including the
Team Leader or Division Director. The Center prefers that differences
of opinion regarding science or science-based policy be resolved
between the review team/group and the applicant. If the matter is not
resolved by this preferred method then CVM recommends that the
applicant follow the procedures in GFI #79.
    In the Federal Register of October 27, 2017 (82 FR 49836), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. We received no comments.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                           21 CFR section                               Number of      responses per     Total annual    Average burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses       per response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.75, Request for review of a scientific dispute..................               1                4                4               10               40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    In the next 3 years, CVM anticipates receiving one or fewer
requests for review of a scientific dispute per year, on average. We
base our estimate on CVM's experience over the past 6 years in handling
formal appeals for scientific disputes. The burden of this collection
has changed. The number of respondents decreased from two to one
annually, the number of responses per respondent remained at four
annually, the hours per response remained at 10 annually, and the total
number of hours decreased from 80 to 40. This decrease in the total
hours is the result of a natural fluctuation in the number of
respondents taking advantage of this dispute resolution process.

    Dated: February 5, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-02593 Filed 2-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 226 (Tuesday, November 24, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73160-73161]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29824]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0593; A-1-FRL-9939-23-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; ME; Repeal of the Maine's General Conformity
Provision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Maine. This revision removes State Regulation Chapter 141
Conformity of General Federal Actions from the SIP.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 24,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2015-0593 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0593'', Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's
normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
Section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ariel Garcia, Air Quality Unit, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5
Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules Section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action
rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt

as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: November 5, 2015.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2015-29824 Filed 11-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 34739]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15598]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Seventieth RTCA SC-135 Environmental Testing Plenary

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Seventieth RTCA SC-135 Environmental Testing Plenary.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of Seventieth RTCA SC-135 Environmental Testing Plenary.

DATES: The meeting will be held August 11, 2017, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting hosted at:
RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC
20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Morrison at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite
910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at
(202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the Seventieth RTCA SC-135 Environmental
Testing Plenary. The agenda will include the following:

August 11, 2017, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

(1) Chairmen's Opening Remarks, Introductions
(2) Approval of Summary of the Sixty-Ninetieth Meeting
(3) Review and Approve Proposed ISRA With SC-228
(4) Review and Approve Changes to the Terms of Reference for SC-135 to
Support ISRA
(5) New/Unfinished Business
(6) Review Date for Next SC-135 Meeting
(7) Adjourn
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 20, 2017.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17,
NextGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-15598 Filed 7-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 156 (Monday, August 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 48153]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19788]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0375, FRL-9715-7]

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Request for Methyl Bromide
Critical Use Exemption Applications for 2015, Deadline Extension

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Extension to submittal date for applications.

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

SUMMARY: On May 17, 2012, the EPA published a notice in the Federal
Register requesting applications for the Critical Use Exemption from
the phaseout of methyl bromide for 2015. On August 3, 2012, EPA
received a letter from methyl bromide stakeholders requesting an
extension to the August 15, 2012 deadline for submitting Critical Use
Exemption applications. The letter requested a deadline of August 29,
2012. The letter explained that additional time is needed by the
stakeholders to complete their Critical Use Exemption applications,
citing recent industry involvement with associated international
meetings as impeding their ability to devote adequate time to the
application process. EPA believes that the requested extension is
reasonable, and is granting the extension to all applicants. Critical
Use Exemption Applications for 2015 are now due to the agency on or
before August 29, 2012. A copy of the August 3, 2012 letter to the
agency is available in the EPA Docket.

DATES: Applications for the 2015 Critical Use Exemption must be
postmarked on or before August 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA encourages users to submit their applications
electronically to Jeremy Arling, Stratospheric Protection Division, at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If the application is submitted electronically,
applicants must fax a signed copy of Worksheet 1 to<PHONE_NUMBER> by the
application deadline. Applications for the methyl bromide critical use
exemption can also be submitted by U.S. mail to: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Attention Methyl Bromide Team, Mail Code 6205J,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by courier delivery
to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation,
Stratospheric Protection Division, Attention Methyl Bromide Review
Team, 1310 L St. NW., Room 1047E, Washington, DC 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General Information: U.S. EPA
Stratospheric Ozone Information Hotline, 1-800-296-1996; also http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr.
    Technical Information: Bill Chism, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (7503P), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Regulatory Information: Jeremy Arling, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division (6205J), 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    EPA Docket: The docket can be accessed at the http://www.regulations.gov site. To obtain copies of materials in hard copy,
please email the EPA Docket Center<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The Docket
ID No. for Critical Use Exemption Applications for 2015 is: EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0375.

Sarah Dunham,
Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-19788 Filed 8-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 5, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26685-26687]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09570]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0720; FRL-10008-06]

Pesticide Registration Review; Pesticide Dockets Opened for
Review and Comment; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of the EPA's
preliminary work plans for the following chemicals: Chlorantraniliprole
and sodium hydroxide. With this document, the EPA is opening the public
comment period for registration review for these chemicals.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 6, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, to the docket identification (ID)
number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the Table in
Unit IV, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, are available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For pesticide specific information, contact: The Chemical Review
Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in the Table in Unit
IV.
    For general questions on the registration review program, contact:
Melanie Biscoe, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the Chemical Review Manager identified in the Table in Unit IV.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA
through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

II. Background

    Registration review is the EPA's periodic review of pesticide
registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the
statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. Registration review dockets contain
information that will assist the public in understanding the types of
information and issues that the agency may consider during the course
of registration reviews. As part of the registration review process,
the Agency has completed preliminary workplans for all pesticides
listed in the Table in Unit IV. Through this program, the EPA is
ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current
scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health
and the environment.

III. Authority

    The EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals
listed in the Table in Unit IV pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural
Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C.
Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the
registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under
FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only
if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA
section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must
perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food.

IV. Registration Reviews

A. What action is the Agency taking?

    A pesticide's registration review begins when the agency
establishes a docket for the pesticide's registration review case and
opens the docket for public review and comment. Pursuant to 40 CFR
155.50, this notice announces the availability of the EPA's preliminary
work plans for the pesticides shown in the following table and opens a
60-day public comment period on the work plans.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Chemical Review Manager and contact
     Registration review case name and No.            Docket ID No.                     information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chlorantraniliprole, Case Number 7448.........       EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0034  Andrew Muench<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Sodium hydroxide, Case Number 4065............       EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0152  SanYvette Williams,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703)
                                                                            305-7702.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Docket Content

    The registration review docket contains information that the agency
may consider in the course of the registration review. The agency may
include information from its files including, but not limited to, the
following information:
     An overview of the registration review case status.
     A list of current product registrations and registrants.
     Federal Register notices regarding any pending
registration actions.
     Federal Register notices regarding current or pending
tolerances.
     Risk assessments.
     Bibliographies concerning current registrations.
     Summaries of incident data.
     Any other pertinent data or information.
    Each docket contains a document summarizing what the agency
currently knows about the pesticide case and a preliminary work plan
for anticipated data and assessment needs. Additional documents provide
more detailed information. During this public comment period, the
agency is asking that interested persons identify any additional
information they believe the agency should consider during the
registration reviews of these pesticides. The agency identifies in each
docket the areas where public comment is specifically requested, though
comment in any area is welcome.
    The registration review final rule at 40 CFR 155.50(b) provides for
a minimum 60-day public comment period on all preliminary registration
review work plans. This comment period is intended to provide an
opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any
necessary changes to a pesticide's workplan. All comments should be
submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES and must be received by the
EPA on or before the closing date. These comments will become part of
the docket for the pesticides included in the Table in Unit IV.
Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked
``late.'' The EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
    The agency will carefully consider all comments received by the
closing date and may provide a ``Response to Comments Memorandum'' in
the docket. The final registration review work plan will explain the
effect that any comments had on the final work plan and provide the
agency's response to significant comments.

    Background on the registration review program is provided at:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: April 27, 2020.
Mary Reaves,
Acting Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2020-09570 Filed 5-4-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 9, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1001-1003]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00022]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0680; FRL-9972-83--Region 9]

Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Yolo-Solano Air
Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District
(YSAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP).
This revision concerns emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
from organic liquid storage and transfer operations. We are proposing
to approve a local rule to regulate these emission sources under the
Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal
and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by February 8, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2017-0680 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Rebecca
Newhouse, at [email protected]. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Newhouse, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3004, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the rule revision?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
    D. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Amended/
             Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title             revised        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YSAQMD................................            2.21  Organic Liquid Storage          09/14/16        01/24/17
                                                         and Transfer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 17, 2017, the EPA determined that the submittal for YSAQMD
Rule 2.21 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V,
which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    We approved an earlier version of Rule 2.21 into the SIP on October
31,

2006 (71 FR 63694). The YSAQMD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved
rule on March 12, 2014, and CARB submitted the revised rule to us on
June 26, 2015. The YSAQMD further revised the rule on September 14,
2016, and CARB submitted the revised rule to us on January 24, 2017. We
are acting on only the most recently submitted version of the rule but
have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals.

C. What is the purpose of the rule revision?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter
(PM), which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of
the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOC
emissions. SIP-approved Rule 2.21 limits VOC emissions from organic
liquid storage tanks and during transfers at bulk terminals, bulk
gasoline plants, and gasoline dispensing facilities. Revisions to the
SIP-approved version of Rule 2.21 adopted on March 12, 2014, and
September 14, 2016, exempt gasoline dispensing facilities from Rule
2.21, remove associated vapor recovery requirements for Stage I
gasoline transfers at gasoline dispensing facilities, restrict
allowable primary seals for storage tanks to mechanical shoe seals, and
make other clarifying changes regarding floating roof seals and deck
fitting requirements. The YSAQMD exempted gasoline dispensing
facilities and removed associated vapor recovery requirements from Rule
2.21 to eliminate redundancies between Rule 2.21 and SIP-approved
YSAQMD Rule 2.22, which contains equivalent requirements for Phase I
gasoline transfers at gasoline dispensing facilities. The EPA's
technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section
110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements
(see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control
requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or
greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).
    Additionally, SIP rules must require Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control
Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source of
VOCs in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above (see
CAA section 182(b)(2)). The YSAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment
area classified as Severe for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient
air quality standard (40 CFR 81.305). Therefore, the YSAQMD must
implement RACT for each category of sources covered by a CTG and each
major source of VOCs. Rule 2.21 applies to the following four CTG
source categories: (1) External floating roof storage tanks, (2) fixed-
roof storage tanks, (3) bulk gasoline terminals, and (4) bulk gasoline
plants.
    Guidance documents that we use to evaluate submitted rules for
compliance with the requirements for enforceability, SIP revisions and
rule stringency for the applicable criteria pollutants include the
following:

    1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January
11, 1990).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of
Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks,'' EPA-450/2-77-036, December
1977.
    5. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquid
Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks,'' EPA-450/2-78-047,
December 1978.
    6. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline
Plants,'' EPA-450/2-77-035, December 1977.
    7. ``Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading
Terminals,'' EPA-450/2-77-026, October 1977.
    8. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document: Volatile Organic
Liquid Storage in Floating and Fixed Roof Tanks,'' EPA-453/R-94-001,
January 1994.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    This rule is consistent with CAA requirements and relevant guidance
regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions. The TSD has more
information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agency modifies the rule.

D. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the submitted rule because it satisfies all applicable
requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
until February 8, 2018. If we take final action to approve the
submitted rule, our final action will incorporate this rule into the
federally enforceable SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the YSAQMD rule described in Table 1 of this preamble. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available
through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely

affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: December 21, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2018-00022 Filed 1-8-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 220 (Friday, November 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 72676]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25071]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3545-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Alabama; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Alabama (FEMA-3545-EM), dated September 14, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 14, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective September 16, 2020.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-25071 Filed 11-12-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P