6454 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

submit written comments on the rule on 

or before December 28, 2015. The DEA 

received one comment in response to 

the publication of the interim final rule 

voicing support for the action. The DEA 

appreciates the support for the rule. 

This exclusion only applies to the 

finished drug product in the form of an 

inhaler (in the exact formulation 

detailed in the application for 

exclusion), which is lawfully sold under 

the FD&C Act over-the-counter without 

a prescription. The extraction or 

removal of the active ingredient 

(levmetamfetamine) from the inhaler 

shall negate this exclusion and result in 

the possession of a schedule II 

controlled substance. 

Regulatory Analyses 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

This regulation has been developed in 

accordance with the Executive Orders 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ section 1(b) and Executive 

Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review.’’ The DEA has 

determined that this rule is not a 

significant regulatory action, and 

accordingly this rule has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget. As discussed above, this 

product was previously exempted under 

a different company name. As discussed 

in the interim final rule, this action will 

not 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; create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency; materially alter the 

budgetary impact of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 

rights and obligations of recipients 

thereof; or raise novel legal or policy 

issues arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in Executive Order 12866. 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612) applies to rules that 

are subject to notice and comment. The 

DEA determined, as explained in the 

interim final rule, that public notice and 

comment were impracticable and 

contrary to the public interest. 

Consequently, the RFA does not apply. 

Although the RFA does not apply to this 

rulemaking, the DEA has reviewed the 

potential impacts of this final rule and 

determined that it will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

discussed above and in the interim final 

rule, this product was previously 

exempted under a different company 

name. The Deputy Assistant 

Administrator, in accordance with the 

RFA, has reviewed this regulation and 

by approving it certifies that this 

regulation will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12988 

This regulation meets the applicable 

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil 

Justice Reform,’’ to eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, minimize 

litigation, provide a clear legal standard 

for affected conduct, and promote 

simplification and burden reduction. 

Executive Order 13132 

This rulemaking does not have 

federalism implications warranting the 

application of Executive Order 13132. 

The rule does not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and the States, or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

Executive Order 13175 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications warranting the application 

of Executive Order 13175. This rule 

does not have substantial direct effects 

on one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

The 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 the UMRA. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule 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. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

Congressional Review Act 

This rule is not a major rule as 

defined by section 804 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional 

Review Act (CRA)). This rule will not 

result in: An annual effect on the 

economy of $100,000,000 or more; a 

major increase in costs or prices for 

consumers, individual industries, 

Federal, State, or local government 

agencies, or geographic regions; or 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and 

export markets. 

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Drug traffic control, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF 

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated 

above, the interim final rule that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 27, 2015 (80 FR 65632), is 

adopted as a final rule without change. 

Dated: February 2, 2016. 

Louis J. Milione, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02404 Filed 2–5–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0073] 

RIN 2127–AL27 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices, 

and Associated Equipment 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NHTSA is amending the side 

marker requirements contained in the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 6455 

1See 32 FR 2408 (Feb. 3, 1967). 

2 72 FR 68234 (Dec. 4, 2007). The reorganized 

standard did not take effect until December 1, 2012. 

76 FR 48009 (Aug. 8, 2011). 

3 45 FR 45287 (July 3, 1980). 

4Specifically, under this additional compliance 

option, the photometric requirements could be met 

for all inboard test points at a distance of 15 feet 

from the vehicle and on a vertical plane that is 

perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle 

and located midway between the front and rear side 

marker lamps. This results in an angle of less than 

45 degrees instead of the fixed 45 degrees that was 

otherwise required, so that the side marker lamp 

was effectively permitted to illuminate a smaller 

area than it otherwise would have been required to 

illuminate. See 45 FR 45287 (July 3, 1980) (citing 

49 CFR 571.108, S4.1.1.8). 

5This is because testing of side marker lamps is 

done at a distance of 15 feet perpendicular to the 

vehicle and at a 45 degree angle. At such a distance 

and angle, only a vehicle 30 feet long or under 

would have both of its side marker lamps visible. 

6The Society of Automotive Engineers (now SAE 

International). SAE is an organization that develops 

technical standards based on best practices. 

7The 1980 final rule placed this requirement in 

S4.1.1.8. Due to subsequent amendments, at the 

time of the 2007 reorganization, the requirement 

was in S5.1.1.8. 

8The requirements were placed in a new table, 

Table X. 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) on lamps, reflective devices 

and associated equipment for vehicles 

80 inches or more in width and less 

than 30 feet long. This final rule adopts 

the amendments proposed in the Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 

published on December 4, 2012. These 

amendments will restore the side 

marker photometry requirements for 

motor vehicles under thirty feet in 

length that were in place prior to the 

2007 final rule that reorganized the 

standard. Restoration of the side marker 

requirements will have no negative 

impact on safety or function and will 

allow motor vehicle manufacturers to 

avoid unnecessary modifications to 

their side marker lamps with no added 

safety or functional benefit. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 8, 2016. 

Compliance Date: Optional early 

compliance as discussed below. 

Petitions for Reconsideration: 

Petitions for reconsideration of this final 

rule must be received not later than 

March 24, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Any petitions for 

reconsideration should refer to the 

docket number of this document and be 

submitted to: Administrator, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West 

Building, Ground Floor, Docket Room 

W12–140, Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For technical issues: Mr. Wayne 

McKenzie, Office of Crash Avoidance 

Standards, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., West Building, 

Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: 

(202) 366–1729) (Fax: (202) 366–7002). 

For legal issues: Mr. John Piazza, 

Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West 

Building, Washington, DC 20590 

(Telephone: (202) 366–2992) (Fax: (202) 

366–3820). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Side marker lamps have been required 

by FMVSS No. 108 since it was 

promulgated as one of the initial Federal 

Motor Vehicles Safety Standards in 

1967.1 The main purpose of side marker 

lamps is to indicate the overall length of 

the vehicle. The photometric 

requirements are meant to ensure that 

the side marker lamps are sufficiently 

visible from a range of viewing angles. 

This final rule addresses an 

unintentional change NHTSA made to 

the photometric requirements for side 

marker lamps when it reorganized 

FMVSS No. 108 in 2007.2 Before 

considering the changes made by this 

final rule, it is useful to briefly examine 

the evolution of the side marker 

requirements before 2007. 

Relevant to the present rulemaking is 

a change that was made to the side 

marker requirements in 1980 in 

response to a petition for rulemaking 

from Chrysler Corporation.3 At the time 

of the Chrysler petition, FMVSS No. 108 

required that the photometric 

requirements for side marker lamps be 

met at test points 45 degrees outboard 

and inboard of the lateral center line 

passing through the lamps. FMVSS No. 

108, however, permitted an additional 

compliance option for vehicles less than 

80 inches in width. This additional 

compliance option had the effect of 

relaxing the inboard photometry 

requirements for the side marker 

lamps.4 Chrysler—which wanted to use 

a common side marker design for its 

single-wheeled (less than 80 inches 

wide) and its dual-wheeled (greater than 

80 inches wide) pickup trucks— 

petitioned to make this compliance 

option available to all vehicles 

regardless of width. NHTSA agreed with 

Chrysler that eligibility for the 

additional compliance option should 

not depend on a vehicle’s width, but did 

not agree that it should be available to 

all vehicles. The agency explained that 

the additional compliance option would 

not be appropriate for vehicles that are 

30 feet or longer.5 Accordingly, the 1980 

final rule revised FMVSS No. 108 by 

deleting the words ‘‘80 inches in overall 

width’’ and substituting ‘‘30 feet in 

overall length.’’ 

The next change to the side marker 

requirements relevant to this final rule 

occurred in 2007, when NHTSA 

reorganized FMVSS No. 108. The 

reorganization was intended to 

streamline the regulatory text and 

clarify the standard’s requirements. That 

final rule made the standard more userfriendly by significantly reducing the 

number of third-party documents, such 

as SAE 6 standards, incorporated by 

reference. Prior to the reorganization, 

FMVSS No. 108 would, in many 

instances, specify requirements by 

simply referencing an SAE standard 

(which contained the requirements), 

instead of explicitly specifying those 

requirements in the text of FMVSS No. 

108. However, when the standard was 

reorganized in 2007, requirements 

contained in the referenced third-party 

standards were included directly in the 

regulatory text, instead of incorporating 

the requirements by referencing the 

standard that contained those 

requirements. The agency explained 

that the reorganization was 

administrative in nature and that the 

FMVSS No. 108 requirements were not 

being increased, decreased, or 

substantively modified. 

However, the newly revised version of 

FMVSS No. 108 inadvertently changed 

the alternative compliance option for 

side marker lamps. Prior to the 

reorganization, side marker lamps were 

required to conform to SAE Standard 

J592e (July 1972) (i.e., the requirements 

were specified using incorporation by 

reference). In addition, the prereorganization regulatory text also 

explicitly specified the alternative 

compliance option that was the subject 

of the 1980 final rule.7 The side marker 

lamp requirements specified in SAE 

J592e (July 1972) also included (in a 

footnote) an alternative compliance 

option for vehicles less than 80 inches 

wide. This was the same compliance 

option for which the agency had deleted 

the words ‘‘80 inches in overall width’’ 

and added the words ‘‘30 feet in overall 

length’’ in the 1980 final rule. When 

NHTSA reorganized FMVSS No. 108 in 

2007, the requirements contained in 

SAE Standard J592e (July 1972) were 

included directly into the regulatory 

text of FMVSS No. 108, thus eliminating 

the incorporation by reference; 8 this 

included the width-based compliance 

option that we had deleted from FMVSS 

No. 108 in 1980. Accordingly, the 2007 

reorganization specified the alternative 

compliance option that for each motor 

vehicle less than 30 feet in overall 

length and less than 2032 mm [80 

inches] in overall width, the minimum 

photometric intensity requirements for a 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
6456 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

9See S7.4.13.2. 

10The agency did receive comments to the NPRM 

to reorganize FMVSS No. 108 that stated that the 

agency’s proposal to add the width criterion to the 

side marker requirements was a substantive change 

to the side marker requirements. However, these 

comments did not cite the 1980 rulemaking that 

had deleted the width criterion. 

11 77 FR 71752, Dec. 4, 2012. 

side marker lamp may be met for all 

inboard test points at a distance of 15 

feet from the vehicle and on a vertical 

plane that is perpendicular to the 

longitudinal axis of the vehicle and 

located midway between the front and 

rear side marker lamps.9

Therefore, the agency inadvertently 

added back into FMVSS No. 108 the 

same width-based language it had 

deleted in 1980. This had the effect of 

substantively changing the side marker 

requirements by limiting the vehicles 

that were eligible for the additional 

compliance option. Before the 

reorganization, vehicles less than 30 feet 

long were eligible; after the rewrite, a 

vehicle had to be both less than 30 feet 

long and less than 80 inches wide. The 

agency did not cite within its analysis 

in the 2007 final rule the 1980 

rulemaking that replaced the width 

criterion with the length criterion.10

II. 2012 Side Marker NPRM 

To address this change, NHTSA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) on December 4, 

2012.11 As we explained in the NPRM, 

based on our communications with 

vehicle manufacturers, a petition for 

rulemaking from the Alliance for 

Automobile Manufacturers, and our 

review of the 1980 final rule, NHTSA 

recognized that the 2007 rewrite 

erroneously added the width 

requirement back into the standard. 

This inadvertent change might have 

required manufacturers to perform 

costly redesigns in order to comply with 

the 2007 final rule. Accordingly, the 

NPRM proposed to restore the prereorganization side marker requirements 

for vehicles that are 80 inches or more 

in width and less than 30 feet long. 

Considering the cost manufacturers 

would have to incur as a result of the 

modifications in the 2007 final rule, 

NHTSA announced in the 2012 NPRM 

that it would not pursue compliance 

actions against manufacturers that 

install side marker lamps on vehicles 

that are 80 inches or more in width and 

less than 30 feet long that fail to meet 

the 45 degree inboard photometric 

requirements of the 2007 final rule, 

provided that they meet the photometric 

requirements at a distance of 15 feet 

from the vehicle and on a vertical plane 

that is perpendicular to the longitudinal 

axis of the vehicle and located midway 

between the front and rear side marker 

lamps. NHTSA stated that this 

enforcement policy would be effective 

until the rulemaking was completed. 

That enforcement policy will end as of 

the effective date of this final rule. 

III. Comments on the NPRM 

NHTSA received only three 

comments in response to the 2012 

NPRM. The Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers (the ‘‘Alliance’’) stated 

that it agrees with NHTSA’s analysis of 

the situation surrounding the changes to 

FMVSS No. 108 during the 

administrative reorganization process as 

well as the proposed revisions. The 

Alliance stated that the proposed 

changes would bring the side marker 

photometry requirements back in line 

with the original intent of the 1980 final 

rule and restore the requirements that 

were in force prior to the 2007 final 

rule. The Alliance also commented that 

the phrase ‘‘. . . and less than 80 inches 

(2m) in overall width’’ should be 

deleted from footnote 1 of Table X to 

ensure there is no ambiguity concerning 

the application of side marker lamp 

inboard photometry requirements. 

General Motors submitted a comment 

in support of the change to the proposal 

and stated that the proposed changes 

would restore the previous requirements 

and would have no overall effect on 

safety. 

The European Commission submitted 

a comment requesting an extension of 

the comment period to February 5, 

2013. 

IV. Agency Comment Analysis and 

Agency Decision 

NHTSA has carefully considered the 

comments submitted in this rulemaking. 

We have reviewed the comments 

received from GM and the Alliance and 

agree with the rationale presented. 

Having received no information to the 

contrary, we are amending S7.4.13.2 of 

FMVSS No. 108 to delete the phrase 

‘‘and less than 2032 mm in overall 

width,’’ consistent with the proposal. 

This revision will restore the 

photometric requirements in FMVSS 

No. 108 for side marker lamps on 

vehicles less than 30 feet in length so 

that the requirements may be met for all 

inboard test points at a distance of 15 

feet from the vehicle on a vertical plane 

that is perpendicular to the longitudinal 

axis of the vehicle and located midway 

between the front and rear side marker 

lamps, regardless of the width of the 

vehicle. 

We have also decided to adopt the 

Alliance’s proposed revision to footnote 

1 of Table X. The text in the footnote 

that the Alliance proposes to delete— 

‘‘and less than 80 inches (2m) in overall 

width’’—is essentially the same as the 

text we are deleting from S7.4.13.2. 

Similarly revising this footnote will 

make the requirements stated in the 

footnote consistent with the 

requirements stated in S7.4.13.2. 

With respect to the comment from the 

European Commission, NHTSA chose 

not to extend the comment period 

formally because we stated in the NPRM 

that the agency would consider late 

comments to the extent practicable. 

Given that this final rule is being 

published several years after the NPRM 

and we did not receive any additional 

comments or requests to extend the 

comment period, we consider this 

comment resolved. 

V. Effective Date 

In the NPRM we proposed an effective 

date of 30 days after publication of the 

final rule. Under the Safety Act, a 

FMVSS typically is not effective before 

the 180th day after the standard is 

published. We did not receive any 

comments concerning the proposed 

effective date. Therefore, in keeping 

with typical practice, this final rule will 

be effective August 8, 2016, with 

optional early compliance. We believe 

that specifying a later effective date for 

this final rule will not have any adverse 

effects or prejudice regulated entities. 

Moreover, providing for optional early 

compliance will allow manufacturers to 

immediately benefit from the flexibility 

afforded by the revised side marker 

requirements the same as if the effective 

date were earlier. NHTSA’s compliance 

policy stated in the 2012 NPRM is 

terminated as of the effective date of this 

final rule. 

VI. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

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 DOT’s regulatory policies and 

procedures. This final rule was not 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’ It is 

not considered to be significant under 

E.O. 12866 or the Department’s 

regulatory policies and procedures. 

This final rule restores requirements 

to the standard that were 

unintentionally changed during the 

administrative revision of the standard. 

Because this final rule merely restores 

previously existing requirements it is 

not expected to have any costs. This 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 6457 

final rule allows manufacturers to avoid 

the cost of redesigning the side marker 

lamps for dual-wheeled pickup trucks 

because these vehicles can now 

continue to meet the side marker 

photometry requirements for narrower 

vehicles. Because there are not any costs 

associated with this rulemaking and 

only minor benefits, we have not 

prepared a separate economic analysis 

for this rulemaking. 

B. Executive Order 13609: Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

The policy statement in section 1 of 

Executive Order 13609 provides, in part: 

The regulatory approaches taken by foreign 

governments may differ from those taken by 

U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar 

issues. In some cases, the differences 

between the regulatory approaches of U.S. 

agencies and those of their foreign 

counterparts might not be necessary and 

might impair the ability of American 

businesses to export and compete 

internationally. In meeting shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues, 

international regulatory cooperation can 

identify approaches that are at least as 

protective as those that are or would be 

adopted in the absence of such cooperation. 

International regulatory cooperation can also 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary 

differences in regulatory requirements. 

NHTSA is not aware of any 

conflicting regulatory approach taken by 

a foreign government concerning the 

subject matter of this rulemaking. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 60l et seq., 

NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this 

action on small entities. I hereby certify 

that this rule would not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The final rule 

would affect manufacturers of motor 

vehicle light equipment, but the entities 

that qualify as small businesses would 

not be significantly affected by this 

rulemaking because the agency is 

restoring requirements that previously 

existed in an older version of the 

regulation. This rulemaking is not 

expected to affect the cost of 

manufacturing motor vehicle lighting 

equipment. 

D. Executive Order 13132 

NHTSA has examined this rule 

pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and 

concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The agency has concluded that 

the rulemaking would not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

warrant consultation with State and 

local officials or the preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement. 

The final rule would not have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ 

NHTSA rules can preempt in two 

ways. First, the National Traffic and 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an 

express preemption provision: ‘‘When a 

motor vehicle safety standard is in effect 

under this chapter, a State or a political 

subdivision of a State may prescribe or 

continue in effect a standard applicable 

to the same aspect of performance of a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment only if the standard is 

identical to the standard prescribed 

under this chapter.’’ 49 U.S.C. 

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

by Congress that preempts any nonidentical State legislative and 

administrative law addressing the same 

aspect of performance. 

The express preemption provision set 

forth above is subject to a savings clause 

under which ‘‘[c]ompliance with a 

motor vehicle safety standard prescribed 

under this chapter does not exempt a 

person from liability at common law.’’ 

49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this 

provision, State common law tort causes 

of action against motor vehicle 

manufacturers that might otherwise be 

preempted by the express preemption 

provision are generally preserved. 

However, the Supreme Court has 

recognized the possibility, in some 

instances, of implied preemption of 

such State common law tort causes of 

action by virtue of NHTSA’s rules, even 

if not expressly preempted. This second 

way that NHTSA rules can preempt is 

dependent upon there being an actual 

conflict between an FMVSS and the 

higher standard that would effectively 

be imposed on motor vehicle 

manufacturers if someone obtained a 

State common law tort judgment against 

the manufacturer, notwithstanding the 

manufacturer’s compliance with the 

NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA 

standards established by an FMVSS are 

minimum standards, a State common 

law tort cause of action that seeks to 

impose a higher standard on motor 

vehicle manufacturers will generally not 

be preempted. However, if and when 

such a conflict does exist—for example, 

when the standard at issue is both a 

minimum and a maximum standard— 

the State common law tort cause of 

action is impliedly preempted. See 

Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 

529 U.S. 861 (2000). 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 

and 12988, NHTSA has considered 

whether this rule could or should 

preempt State common law causes of 

action. The agency’s ability to announce 

its conclusion regarding the preemptive 

effect of one of its rules reduces the 

likelihood that preemption will be an 

issue in any subsequent tort litigation. 

To this end, the agency has examined 

the nature (e.g., the language and 

structure of the regulatory text) and 

objectives of this 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 this 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. 

E. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this final rule 

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. 

F. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the procedures established by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 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. This final 

rule would not establish any new 

information collection requirements. 

G. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Under the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104–113), ‘‘all Federal 

agencies and departments shall use 

technical standards that are developed 

or adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies, using such technical 

standards as a means to carry out policy 

objectives or activities determined by 

the agencies and departments.’’ This 

final rule would not adopt or reference 

any new industry or consensus 

standards that were not already present 

in FMVSS No. 108. 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

With respect to the review of the 

promulgation of a new regulation, 

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
6458 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, 

February 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 these 

requirements. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes 

as follows. The preemptive effect of this 

final rule is discussed above. NHTSA 

notes further that there is no 

requirement that individuals submit a 

petition for reconsideration or pursue 

other administrative proceeding before 

they may file suit in court. 

I. 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 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). This final rule 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. 

J. Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 18, 2001) applies to any 

rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be 

economically significant as defined 

under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have 

a significantly adverse effect on the 

supply of, distribution of, or use of 

energy; or (2) that is designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. This 

rulemaking is not subject to E.O. 13211. 

K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

L. Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). 

Regulatory Text 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor 

vehicles, Tires. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA is amending 49 CFR part 571 as 

set forth below. 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 571 

continues to read as follows: 

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

30117, 30166: delegation of authority at 49 

CFR 1.95. 

■ 2. Section 571.108 is amended by 

revising paragraph S7.4.13.2 and 

footnote 1 of Table X to read as follows: 

§ 571.108 Standard No. 108; Lamps, 

reflective devices, and associated 

equipment. 

* * * * * 

S7.4.13.2 Inboard photometry. For 

each motor vehicle less than 30 feet in 

overall length, the minimum 

photometric intensity requirements for a 

side marker lamp may be met for all 

inboard test points at a distance of 15 

feet from the vehicle and on a vertical 

plane that is perpendicular to the 

longitudinal axis of the vehicle and 

located midway between the front and 

rear side marker lamps. 

* * * * * 

Table X—Side Marker Lamp 

Photometry Requirements 

* * * * * 

(1) Where a side marker lamp 

installed on a motor vehicle less than 30 

feet in overall length has the lateral 

angle nearest the other required side 

marker lamp on the same side of the 

vehicle reduced from 45° by design as 

specified by S7.4.13.2, the photometric 

intensity measurement may be met at 

the lesser angle. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 1, 

2016 under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.95. 

Mark R. Rosekind, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02268 Filed 2–5–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION 

SAFETY BOARD 

49 CFR Part 830 

[Docket No. NTSB–AS–2012–0001] 

RIN 3147–AA11 

Notification and Reporting of Aircraft 

Accidents or Incidents and Overdue 

Aircraft, and Preservation of Aircraft 

Wreckage, Mail, Cargo, and Records 

AGENCY: National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB). 

ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: The NTSB publishes 

confirmation of an amendment to its 

regulations concerning notification and 

reporting requirements with regard to 

aircraft accidents or incidents, titled, 

‘‘Immediate notification.’’ The 

regulation requires reports of Airborne 

Collision and Avoidance System 

(ACAS) resolution advisories issued 

under certain specific circumstances. In 

a Direct Final Rule published December 

15, 2015, the NTSB narrowed the ACAS 

reporting requirement, consistent with 

the agency’s authority to issue noncontroversial amendments to rules. The 

NTSB also updated its contact 

information for notifications. This 

document confirms the changes and the 

effective date. 

DATES: The final rule published 

December 15, 2015 (80 FR 77586) 

becomes effective February 16, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of this final rule, 

published in the Federal Register, is 

available for inspection and copying in 

the NTSB’s public reading room, located 

at 490 L’Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, 

DC 20594–2000. Alternatively, a copy of 

the rule is available on the NTSB Web 

site, at http://www.ntsb.gov, and at the 

government-wide Web site on 

regulations, at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Dunham, National Resource 

Specialist—ATC, Office of Aviation 

Safety, (202) 314–6387. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

As described in the NTSB’s preamble 

summarizing the direct final rule, in 

2010, the NTSB added a requirement for 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES