Je veux savoir à propos de…

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

tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with RULES

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 M17
21 Implementing E.O. 13771, a regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13771 is a significant regulatory action as defined in section 3f 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 3b 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:26 Jan 07, 2021

Jkt 253001

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 12d 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 NHTSAs 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
PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

1297

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.

E:FRFM08JAR1.SGM

08JAR1