79456 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

could influence the distribution and 

dispensing rates, if any, of samidorphan, 

DEA is unable to determine the number 

of entities and small entities which 

might handle samidorphan. In some 

instances where a controlled 

pharmaceutical drug is removed from 

the schedules of the CSA, DEA is able 

to quantify the estimated number of 

affected entities and small entities 

because the handling of the drug is 

expected to be limited to DEA 

registrants even after removal from the 

schedules. In such instances, DEA’s 

knowledge of its registrant population 

forms the basis for estimating the 

number of affected entities and small 

entities. However, DEA does not have a 

basis to estimate whether samidorphan 

is expected to be handled by persons 

who hold DEA registrations, by persons 

who are not currently registered with 

DEA to handle controlled substances, or 

both. Therefore, DEA is unable to 

estimate the number of entities and 

small entities who plan to handle 

samidorphan. 

Although DEA does not have a 

reliable basis to estimate the number of 

affected entities and quantify the 

economic impact of this final rule, a 

qualitative analysis indicates that this 

rule is likely to result in some cost 

savings. As noted above, DEA is 

specifically soliciting comments on the 

economic impact of this proposed rule. 

DEA will revise this section if warranted 

after consideration of any comments 

received. Any person planning to 

handle samidorphan will realize cost 

savings in the form of saved DEA 

registration fees, and the elimination of 

physical security, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements. 

Because of these factors, DEA projects 

that this rule will not result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

On the basis of information contained 

in the ‘‘RFA’’ section above, DEA has 

determined and certifies pursuant to the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., that this 

action would not result in any federal 

mandate that may result ‘‘in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100,000,000 or more 

(adjusted for inflation) in any one year 

* * *.’’ Therefore, neither a Small 

Government Agency Plan nor any other 

action is required under provisions of 

UMRA. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose a new 

collection of information requirement 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501–3521. This action would 

not impose recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements on State or local 

governments, individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. 

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Drug traffic control, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set out above, 21 CFR 

part 1308 is proposed to be amended to 

read as follows: 

PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF 

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 

■ 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 1308 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), 

956(b), unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. In § 1308.12, revise the introductory 

text of paragraph (b)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1308.12 Schedule II. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Opium and opiate, and any salt, 

compound, derivative, or preparation of 

opium or opiate excluding 

apomorphine, thebaine-derived 

butorphanol, dextrorphan, nalbuphine, 

naldemedine, nalmefene, naloxegol, 

naloxone, 6b-naltrexol, naltrexone, and 

samidorphan, and their respective salts, 

but including the following: 

* * * * * 

Timothy J. Shea, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26812 Filed 12–9–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2020–0109] 

RIN 2127–AM04 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards: Test Procedures 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM). 

SUMMARY: NHTSA is issuing this 

ANPRM to seek public comment on 

whether any test procedures for any 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 

(FMVSS) may be a candidate for 

replacement, repeal, or modification, for 

reasons other than for considerations 

relevant only to automated driving 

systems (ADS). This document is a 

continuation of the Agency’s efforts to 

improve the FMVSS and minimize 

burdens. The Agency takes this action 

in response to its review of the FMVSS 

and to public comments solicited by 

DOT in a 2017 notice on its regulatory 

reform efforts. The commenters 

requested that NHTSA amend test 

procedures for air brakes and occupant 

crash protection. NHTSA has also 

identified some possible additional test 

procedure issues and discusses them in 

this Notice. In addition, this ANPRM 

also seeks comments and supporting 

information relating to any other test 

procedures which may be a candidate 

for replacement, repeal or modification, 

not just those specifically discussed in 

this Notice. 

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than February 8, 2021. See the 

Public Participation heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document for more information 

about written comments. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

to the docket number identified in the 

heading of this document by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• 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: 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

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 docket 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules 79457 

1 82 FR 45750. 

2As used in this notice, ‘‘test procedures’’ 

includes test conditions, test procedures, and test 

devices (e.g., dummies and crash barriers). 

3 84 FR 24433, May 29, 2019. 

DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement 

in the Federal Register published on 

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78). 

Confidential Information: If you wish 

to submit any information under a claim 

of confidentiality, you should submit 

three copies of your complete 

submission, including the information 

you claim to be confidential business 

information, to the Chief Counsel of 

NHTSA, at the address given under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In 

addition, you should submit two copies, 

from which you have deleted the 

claimed confidential business 

information, to Docket Management at 

the address given above under 

ADDRESSES. When you send a comment 

containing information claimed to be 

confidential business information, you 

should include a cover letter setting 

forth the information specified in the 

confidential business information 

regulation. (49 CFR part 512.) 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov or the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Mary Versailles, Office of Rulemaking, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

Telephone: (202) 366–2057. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Example Test Procedures 

A. FMVSS No. 103 

B. FMVSS No. 104 

C. FMVSS Nos. 105/135 

D. FMVSS No. 121 

E. FMVSS No. 126 

III. Questions Requesting Further Information 

From the Public 

IV. Public Participation 

V. Rulemaking Notices and Analyses 

I. Background 

On October 2, 2017, the Department 

of Transportation (DOT) published a 

Notice in the Federal Register inviting 

‘‘the public to provide input on existing 

rules and other agency actions that are 

good candidates for repeal, replacement, 

suspension, or modification.’’ 1 DOT 

received almost 3,000 comments in 

response to this Notice, of which 

approximately twenty-three addressed 

rules and agency actions under the 

scope of the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA). In 

response to these public comments, and 

on the Agency’s own initiative, the 

agency is planning to issue a series of 

advance notices of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPRMs) on various regulatory reform 

topics. 

This ANPRM specifically discusses 

test procedures 2 that may be candidates 

for replacement, repeal, or modification. 

This Notice does not address the 

performance requirements within the 

standards, but only the test procedures 

specified in the standards for NHTSA to 

use to verify compliance. Additionally, 

this Notice does not address issues 

related to test procedures relevant only 

to technologies for automated driving 

systems (ADS), commonly referred to as 

automated or self-driving vehicles. 

Comments on test procedures that may 

be candidates for repeal, replacement, or 

modification to permit the introduction 

and certification of ADS would be more 

appropriate for the ANPRM for RIN 

2127–AM00 3 or one of the topicspecific ANPRMs. NHTSA also notes 

that the specific test procedures 

discussed in the remainder of this 

Notice are not meant to be an exclusive 

listing of the test procedures that may be 

suitable candidates for replacement, 

repeal, or modification. Rather, these 

tests procedures are intended to serve as 

examples for why a test procedure 

might be a candidate. 

II. Example Test Procedures 

As discussed in this section, NHTSA, 

partially in response to comments, has 

identified possible examples of test 

procedures that might be candidates for 

replacement, repeal, or modification. 

These are discussed below to illustrate 

the kinds of test procedures for which 

the Agency would like to seek comment 

for this Notice. DOT received a few 

comments from trade associations that 

addressed test procedure changes. The 

Truck and Engine Manufacturers 

Association (‘‘EMA’’; DOT–OST–2017– 

0069–2786) commented on the test 

procedures of FMVSS No. 121, but, as 

discussed below, NHTSA would like 

more information on the request to 

understand better EMA’s suggestion. 

The Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers (‘‘Alliance’’; DOT–OST– 

2017–0069–2700), raised issues relating 

to FMVSS Nos. 208 and 209. The 

Association of Global Automakers 

(‘‘Global’’; DOT–OST–2017–0069–2772) 

raised the same issue as the Alliance 

relating to FMVSS No. 208, but did not 

address FMVSS No. 209. Both the 

Alliance and Global suggested changes 

to FMVSS Nos. 208 and 209 that appear 

to go beyond test procedure changes. 

Because these comments require 

consideration of both performance 

requirements and test procedures, the 

comments are discussed in the ANPRM 

for RIN 2127–AM05, which deals with 

regulatory barriers in the performance 

requirements for non-ADS vehicles. 

A. FMVSS No. 103 

Compliance with the performance 

requirements of FMVSS No. 103, 

Windshield defrosting and defogging 

systems (49 CFR 571.103), is determined 

by the Agency using a test procedure 

incorporated from SAE Recommended 

Practice J902 (August 1964 or March 

1967), which is predicated on a 

vehicle’s having a conventional internal 

combustion engine (ICE). The Agency is 

considering whether these procedures 

should be revised or modified for 

vehicles with other types of propulsion 

and requests comment on this issue. 

B. FMVSS 104 

Determination of compliance with the 

performance requirements of FMVSS 

104, Windshield wiping and washing 

systems (49 CFR 571.104), has the same 

test procedure issue as FMVSS 103 

since it is also predicated on the 

vehicle’s having an ICE. In addition, 

should the test procedure be updated for 

newer systems with rain sensor 

technology? 

C. FMVSS 105/135 

FMVSS 105, Hydraulic and electric 

brake systems (49 CFR 571.105), is 

applicable to multi-purpose passenger 

vehicles (MPVs), trucks, and buses with 

a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 

3,500 kilograms (kg; 7,716 pounds (lbs)) 

or more equipped with hydraulically or 

electrically actuated brakes. The 

standard has not been updated since 

1976. NHTSA has a similar brake 

standard, FMVSS No. 135, Light vehicle 

brake systems (49 CFR 571.135), which 

went into effect in 1995 and applies to 

hydraulically braked vehicles, but with 

a GVWR less than 3,500 kg. Should the 

Agency revise the test procedures in 

either of these brake standards to 

improve clarity or efficiency for 

compliance? 

For example, the FMVSS Nos. 105/ 

135 braking tests could be revised 

consistent with FMVSS No. 122, 

Motorcycle brake systems (49 CFR 

571.122), as it relates to the number of 

stopping attempts for each specified test 

condition. FMVSS Nos. 105/135 

specifies, in most test conditions, the 

completion of no fewer than six stops 

regardless of which of the stops, or how 

many of them, meet the stopping 

distance performance requirement. 

FMVSS No. 122, on the other hand, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
79458 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

4An outrigger is a stabilizing device attached to 

the vehicle to protect the vehicle and/or driver from 

rollover during test maneuvers. 

permits the skipping of the remaining 

stops (if any) for that test and allowing 

the next test to be performed once a 

passing stop is obtained, even if that 

occurs before the specified number of 

stops are made. Should FMVSS Nos. 

105/135 be updated and would this 

change reduce testing time and cost 

without compromising the safety 

evaluation of the braking system? 

D. FMVSS No. 121 

EMA commented that, despite a 

number of revisions in the past, FMVSS 

No. 121, Air brake systems (49 CFR 

571.121), has not kept pace with 

advances in heavy-duty air brake 

components and systems. While 

indicating that a number of 

modifications would be appropriate to 

address this issue, EMA did not 

elaborate on them. The Agency requests 

more information about the 

modifications that would update the 

standard to keep pace with advances in 

heavy-duty air brake components and 

systems, and why, specifically, they are 

needed. 

E. FMVSS No. 126 

Section 6.3.4 of FMVSS No. 126, 

Electronic stability control systems (49 

CFR 571.126), specifies the use of 

outriggers 4 when testing MPVs, trucks, 

and buses, but not when testing 

passenger cars. Today’s vehicle market 

includes crossover vehicles which are 

classified as MPVs but which are 

typically based on passenger car 

platforms, unlike traditional MPVs, 

which are based on light truck 

platforms. What evidence is there that 

crossover vehicles perform more like 

passenger cars than traditional MPVs, 

and how would updating the test 

procedure to remove the outriggers be 

justified? If the Agency was to specify 

the use of outriggers based on criteria 

other than just vehicle classification, 

what would commenters recommend for 

criteria? Would modifying the criteria 

improve efficiency and reduce the need 

for these devices in some testing, 

thereby reducing costs? 

IV. Questions Requesting Further 

Information From the Public 

In order to inform the Agency as it 

works toward possible rulemaking 

proposals, NHTSA invites comments on 

any other test procedures that are 

potential candidates for replacement, 

repeal, or modification. NHTSA again 

emphasizes that the test procedures 

discussed in Sections II and III of this 

notice are just examples of test 

procedures that might be a candidate for 

replacement, repeal, or modification, 

and thus illustrate the types of reasons 

why such a change may be necessary. 

NHTSA requests comments on the 

specific test procedure issues discussed 

above, other issues related to the test 

procedures for the FMVSSs discussed 

above, and issues related to the test 

procedures for any other FMVSS. For 

example, a test procedure may specify 

testing that is no longer necessary, or 

may not be clear about how to test 

vehicles with newer technology, or may 

even have the effect of prohibiting the 

introduction of such vehicles. The 

Agency requests that commenters 

provide as much research, evidence, or 

data as possible to support their 

comments, as that information will be of 

great assistance to the Agency as it 

considers whether to develop a proposal 

to revise the procedure. 

In addition, commenters should 

consider the following general questions 

when considering potential test 

procedure improvements: 

1. Do any test procedures specify the 

use of equipment that is obsolete or no 

longer available at a reasonable cost? If 

so, what options are available as 

replacements? 

2. Do any test procedures specify the 

use of equipment in a manner that is 

more specific than necessary to ensure 

that the test procedure be repeatable and 

reproducible? 

3. Are there test procedures in 

regulations from standards 

organizations or other countries that 

evaluate compliance with the same 

requirement as one in an FMVSS? If so, 

what evidence is there that the test 

procedure provides an evaluation of 

compliance with the requirement in a 

manner and to an extent equivalent to 

the current test procedure in the 

FMVSS? 

4. What specific problems and 

challenges have testing laboratories, 

researchers, or other entities 

encountered when trying to follow 

existing test procedures in an FMVSS? 

For each problem or challenge, please 

explain how it is currently addressed 

and any suggested solutions for how it 

should be addressed in the future. 

5. Are there any test procedures that 

do not accurately reflect real-world 

scenarios? If so, what evidence is there 

to show that a test procedure needs to 

be updated to reflect real-world 

scenarios being tested more accurately? 

Similarly, how can test procedures be 

updated to represent a real-world 

scenario more accurately? 

6. Are there any loopholes in test 

procedures that could lead to a passing 

test result without meeting the intent of 

a standard or regulation? If so, how can 

such loopholes be closed by updating 

the test procedure? 

V. Public Participation 

a. How can I influence NHTSA’s 

thinking on this subject? 

Your comments will help NHTSA 

improve its consideration of issues 

raised by this ANPRM. NHTSA invites 

you to provide different views on 

options NHTSA discusses, new 

approaches the agency has not 

considered, new data, descriptions of 

how this ANPRM may affect you, or 

other relevant information. 

NHTSA welcomes public review on 

all aspects of this ANPRM. NHTSA will 

consider the comments and information 

received in developing a potential 

proposal for updating test procedures 

for motor vehicles and motor vehicle 

equipment. Your comments will be 

most effective if you follow the 

suggestions below: 

• Explain your views and reasoning 

as clearly as possible. 

• Provide solid evidence and data to 

support your views. 

• If you estimate potential costs, 

explain how you arrived at that 

estimate. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns. 

• Offer specific alternatives. 

• Refer your comments to the specific 

sections of (or questions listed in) the 

ANPRM. 

b. How do I prepare and submit 

comments? 

Your primary comments should be 

written in English. To ensure that your 

comments are filed in the correct 

docket, please include the docket 

number of this document in your 

comments. 

Your primary comments should not 

be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 

553.21), however, you may attach 

additional documents, such as 

supporting data or research, to your 

primary comments. There is no limit on 

the length of the attachments. 

Please submit one copy (two copies if 

submitting by mail or hand delivery) of 

your comments, including the 

attachments, to the docket following the 

instructions given in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this 

document. Please note, if you are 

submitting comments electronically as a 

PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the 

documents submitted be scanned using 

the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) 

process, thus allowing NHTSA to search 

and copy certain portions of your 

submission. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules 79459 

Please note that pursuant to the Data 

Quality Act, in order for substantive 

data to be relied upon and used by the 

agency, it must meet the information 

quality standards set forth in the OMB 

and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. 

Accordingly, we encourage you to 

consult the guidelines in preparing your 

comments. DOT’s guidelines may be 

accessed at www.transportation.gov/ 

regulations/dot-informationdissemination-quality-guidelines. 

c. How can I be sure that my comments 

were received? 

If you submit comments by hard copy 

and wish Docket Management to notify 

you upon its receipt of your 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. If you 

submit comments electronically, your 

comments should appear automatically 

in the docket on www.regulations.gov. If 

they do not appear within two weeks of 

posting, NHTSA suggests that you call 

the Docket Management Facility at 202– 

366–9826. 

d. How do I submit confidential 

business information? 

If you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

must submit three copies of your 

complete submission, including the 

information that you claim to be 

confidential business information, to the 

Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590. 

In addition, you should submit a copy 

(two copies if submitting by mail or 

hand delivery) from which you have 

deleted the claimed confidential 

business information to the docket by 

one of the methods given above under 

ADDRESSES. When you submit a 

comment containing information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information, you should include a cover 

letter setting forth the information 

specified in NHTSA’s confidential 

business information regulation (49 CFR 

part 512). 

e. Will the Agency consider late 

comments? 

NHTSA will consider all comments 

that the docket receives before the close 

of business on the comment closing date 

indicated in the DATES section. To the 

extent possible, NHTSA will also 

consider comments that the docket 

receives after that date. 

f. How can I read the comments 

submitted by other people? 

You may read the comments received 

by the docket at the address given in the 

ADDRESSES section. The hours of the 

docket are indicated above in the same 

location. You may also read the 

comments on the internet, identified by 

the docket number at the heading of this 

notice, at www.regulations.gov. Please 

note that, even after the comment 

closing date, NHTSA will continue to 

file relevant information in the docket 

as it becomes available. Further, some 

people may submit late comments. 

Accordingly, NHTSA recommends that 

you periodically check the docket for 

new material. 

VI. Rulemaking Notices and Analyses 

a. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), provides for making 

determinations whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to OMB review and to the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review’’ (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011), 

supplements and reaffirms the 

principles established by Executive 

Order 12866 by encouraging 

harmonization of regulations across 

agencies and requiring agencies to 

consider regulatory approaches that 

reduce burdens and maintain flexibility 

and freedom of choice. Additionally, 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

require agencies to provide a 

meaningful opportunity for public 

participation. Accordingly, we have 

asked commenters to answer a variety of 

questions to elicit practical information 

about alternative approaches and 

relevant technical data on whether and 

how best to update test procedures 

throughout 49 CFR part 571. These 

comments will help the Department 

evaluate whether a proposed 

rulemaking is needed and appropriate. 

NHTSA has considered the impact of 

this ANPRM under Executive Order 

12866, Executive Order 13563, and the 

DOT’s regulatory policies and 

procedures. As discussed in this notice, 

the Agency lacks the necessary 

information to develop a proposal at 

this time due to a number of 

unanswered questions and unresolved 

considerations. However, NHTSA 

anticipates that any proposal that was to 

result from this Notice could have 

minor economic impact by clarifying 

how newer technology is tested, or 

could result in cost-savings by 

eliminating unnecessary aspects of test 

procedures. Therefore, this rulemaking 

has been determined to be not 

‘‘significant’’ under the Department of 

Transportation’s regulatory policies and 

procedures and the policies of the Office 

of Management and Budget. 

b. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs) 

This action is not subject to the 

requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, 

February 3, 2017) because it is an 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking. 

c. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., no analysis is 

required for an ANPRM. However, small 

entities, including small vehicle 

manufacturers and equipment 

manufacturers, are encouraged to 

comment if they identify any aspects of 

a potential rulemaking that may apply 

to them. 

d. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA does not believe that there 

would be sufficient federalism 

implications to warrant the preparation 

of a federalism assessment. The purpose 

of this rulemaking is not to adopt new 

safety performance requirements which 

would preempt non-identical State 

requirements, but merely to revise test 

procedures for existing safety 

performance requirements that would 

not affect their stringency. 

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, 

February 7, 1996) requires that 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
79460 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

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) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. This document is consistent 

with that requirement. 

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 are no information 

collection requirements associated with 

this ANPRM. Any information 

collection requirements and the 

associated burdens will be discussed in 

detail once a proposal has been issued. 

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 (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies, such as the Society of 

Automotive Engineers. The NTTAA 

directs us to provide Congress (through 

OMB) with explanations when we 

decide not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. As NHTSA has not yet 

developed specific regulatory 

provisions, the NTTAA does not apply 

for purposes of this ANPRM. 

h. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires 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 of 

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). NHTSA has determined that this 

ANPRM would not result in 

expenditures by State, local, or Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, in excess of $100 million 

annually. 

i. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking 

action for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The agency 

has preliminarily determined that 

implementation of this rulemaking 

action would not have any significant 

impact on the quality of the human 

environment. 

j. Plain Language 

The Plain Language Writing Act of 

2010 (Pub. L. 111–274) requires that 

Federal agencies write documents in a 

clear, concise, and well-organized 

manner. While the Act does not cover 

regulations, Executive Orders 12866 and 

13563 require each agency to write all 

notices in plain language that is simple 

and easy to understand. 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 notice 

clearly stated? 

• Does the notice contain technical 

language or jargon that is not 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? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please include them in your 

comments on this ANPRM. 

k. Regulatory 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. 

Issued in Washington, DC. 

Under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 

1.95 and 501.5. 

James C. Owens, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27001 Filed 12–9–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS