[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 103 (Friday, May 30, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22968-22973]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-09738]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0032]
RIN 2127-AM84
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 204; Steering Control
Rearward Displacement
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA is proposing to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement, so that it no
longer applies to vehicles that are certified to the frontal barrier
crash protection requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.
DATES: Comments must be received within 60 days of May 30, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments electronically to the docket
identified in the heading of this document by visiting the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, you can file comments using the following methods:
Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is
there to help you, please call (202) 366-9826 before coming.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number identified in the heading of this document.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. 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 https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov. You may also
access the docket at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room
W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal Holidays. Telephone: 202-366-9826.
Confidential Business Information: If you claim that any of the
information in your comment (including any additional documents or
attachments) constitutes confidential business information within the
meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) or is protected from disclosure pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1905, please see the detailed instructions given under the
Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section
of this document.
Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under the
Regulatory Analyses section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact
Garry Brock at [email protected]. For legal issues, you may contact
John Piazza at [email protected]. You can reach these officials by
phone at 202-366-1810. Address: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA is proposing to amend Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 204, Steering Control Rearward
Displacement. This safety standard specifies requirements that limit
the rearward displacement of the steering column in a frontal crash. We
propose to exclude vehicles from having to comply with FMVSS No. 204 if
they are certified to the frontal barrier crash protection requirements
of FMVSS No. 208. We seek comment on all aspects of this proposal.
FMVSS No. 204 specifies requirements that limit the rearward motion
of the steering column in a frontal crash. The standard currently
applies to passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses (except for walk-in
vans or vehicles without steering controls). Vehicles are subjected to
a 30 mile per hour frontal barrier crash test. The upper end of the
steering column and shaft cannot be displaced more than 5 inches (127
mm) horizontally as a result of the crash test.
FMVSS No. 204 is one of the original safety standards that went
into effect on January 1, 1968 (23 FR 2408). Motion of the steering
column, and specifically motion of a collapsable steering column (or
energy absorbing steering column), were analyzed with FMVSS No. 204
being used in conjunction with FMVSS No. 203, Impact protection for the
driver from the steering control system. These two standards were
developed to minimize head, neck and chest injuries to the vehicle
driver as a result of an impact.
In the time since the promulgation of FMVSS No. 204, significant
advances have been made to the crashworthiness of motor vehicles. These
include the development and use of air bags and advanced restraint
systems. These standards also predate the use of Anthropomorphic Test
Devices (ATDs, or crash test dummies) within the
[[Page 22969]]
FMVSS to assess vehicle performance. After FMVSS No. 203 was updated on
November 29, 1979 (44 FR 68475), it no longer applied to vehicles that
complied with the frontal barrier crash requirements of FMVSS Standard
No. 208. This exclusion was warranted because the requirements of FMVSS
No. 203 could prevent the potential future development of air bag
systems. However, FMVSS No. 204 has not been similarly edited since its
promulgation.
On November 15, 1995, NHTSA published an NPRM proposing to exclude
from compliance with FMSSS No. 204 passenger cars and other light
vehicles certified to the frontal barrier crash test requirements of
FMVSS No. 208 by means of an air bag. The basis for the 1995 NPRM was
the belief that auto manufacturers would take into account the need for
a stable platform for their air bag when designing a restraint system.
A designer of an air bag equipped vehicle must know the relative
location of the air bag and the protected occupant when setting up the
design. Performance of the air bag could be adversely affected should
the air bag move up, down, rearwards or forwards during a crash event.
Given that the air bag is located at the end of the steering column, it
was expected that the performance of the air bag would ensure
sufficient consideration of the location of the end of the steering
column. NHTSA also stated the belief that manufacturers take care to
ensure that air bags are not too close to vehicle occupants due to the
potential for injury caused by an air bag deploying too close to a
person.
In response to the 1995 NPRM, six total comments were received.
Four commenters, the insurance institute for highway safety (IIHS), the
American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA), Volkswagen and
Mitsubishi supported the proposal. Two commenters, the Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety and Mr. Lee F. Graser (a crash
reconstructionist) both opposed the proposal. Mr. Graser opposed to
update to FMVSS No. 204 on the basis of the success of FMVSS No. 204 in
aiding occupant safety. The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
expressed concern that smaller occupants sit closer to the air bag, and
motion of the air bag towards these occupants could create a greater
risk of injury. The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety also argued
that there was no supporting data for excluding vehicles from FMVSS No.
204 or the basis for concluding that manufacturers will continue
prevent steering column displacement.
IIHS provided comments that they supported the change to FMVSS No.
204. However, they also provided additional information with regards to
small overlap collisions, noting that excessive motion of the steering
wheel had been seen in small overlap collisions. IIHS noted that this
may lead to an increased injury risk or unusual occupant kinematics.
IIHS noted that steering column intrusion does occur in some crash
types, and they urged NHTSA to promote research to determine the types
of testing which best reveal the issue of steering column movement in
vehicle collisions.
On July 20, 1998, NHTSA terminated the rulemaking that would
exclude certain vehicles from compliance with FMVSS No. 204 (63 FR
38799). At the time of the termination of rulemaking, NHTSA noted that
FMVSS No. 208 had allowed for manufacturers to utilize sled testing for
testing of depowered air bags, in place of an unbelted frontal crash
test. The capability of the steering column is not tested in a sled
test. Accordingly, without testing under FMVSS No. 204, there would be
no method for determining the effect of any motion of the steering
column. For these reasons, NHTSA ended the rulemaking and did not
proceed with finalizing the change to FMVSS No. 204. NHTSA stated that,
if circumstances change in the future, it would consider appropriate
action.
On July 28, 2004, Honda petitioned NHTSA to update FMVSS No. 204 to
allow FMVSS No. 208 to take its place. Honda noted that the advanced
air bag requirements in FMVSS No. 208 would be applied to all light
vehicles beginning September 1, 2006, and that sled testing would not
be allowed. NHTSA denied this petition on March 20, 2006, citing two
reasons. First, the test speeds for unbelted testing under FMVSS No.
208 was lower than the test speeds in FMVSS No. 204. Second, the
petition did not provide data to support that FMVSS No. 208 could be
used to assess extensive contact of movement of the steering controls
in a frontal barrier test.
NHTSA has received additional comments in response to various
notices with requests for re-evaluation of FMVSS No. 204 since denying
the Honda petition.\1\ Further, additional data has been developed and
updates to FMVSS No. 208 have been made since NHTSA denied Honda's 2004
petition. A study was conducted by George Mason University using finite
element modelling to examine the motion of the steering column during a
frontal barrier crash test.\2\ This simulation study examined
situations wherein the steering column motion was close to failing to
meet FMVSS No. 204's performance requirement and found such failing
closely correlated with failing to meet FMVSS No. 208's performance
requirements due to chest deflections.\3\ The study concluded that
based on this observation, a vehicle with steering column displacement
not in compliance with FMVSS No. 204, would therefore also not comply
with FMVSS No. 208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On December 1, 2017, Global Automakers (DOT-OST-2017-0069-
2772) and Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc. (DOT-OST-2017-0069-
2769) submitted comments to the Department of Transportation Notice
of Regulatory Review (DOT-OST-2017-0069). On May 29, 2020, the
Alliance for Automotive Innovation commented on an NPRM for
Automated driving systems (NHTSA Docket No. 2020-0014, 85 FR 17624)
regarding the status FMVSS 204.
\2\ Reichert R., Kan, C., Park, C., ``Measuring Steering Column
Motion in Frontal Rigid-Barrier Test,'' July 2021, DOT HS 812 094,
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/gsearch?collection=dot%3A40796&terms=DOT+HS+813+094.
\3\ The performance requirement is that the upper end of the
steering column and shaft cannot be displaced more than 5 inches
(127 mm) as a result of the crash test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reasons NHTSA gave in 1998 for terminating that rulemaking
appear to no longer be valid due to updates to the tests conducted in
FMVSS No. 208 and the results of additional vehicle safety research.
Commenters to the 1995 NPRM noted concerns with occupants sitting too
close to the air bag. However, FMVSS No. 208 currently specifies
unbelted frontal barrier testing with both the Hybrid III 50th
percentile male and Hybrid III 5th percentile female dummies. The tests
with the 5th percentile female dummy in the driver's seating position
are conducted with the seat in full forward position, creating a test
scenario with a smaller occupant sitting close to an air bag. With
regards to comments regarding steering column motion in a small overlap
crash scenario, FMVSS No. 208 includes an offset deformable barrier
crash tests with the Hybrid III 5th percentile female crash test dummy
in the driver's seat in full forward position as part of FMVSS No. 208.
In the denial of Honda's rulemaking petition, NHTSA noted that the
speed of the unbelted testing was lower than FMVSS No. 204. Currently
the speed utilized for the FMVSS No. 208 unbelted testing is up to 25
mph; however unbelted testing with the Hybrid III 50th percentile male
dummy can be conducted at any angle up to 30 degrees from
perpendicular. Additionally, the crash tests with belted driver and
outboard front passengers are conducted at 35 mph, which is at a higher
speed and 26.5 percent higher crash energy than the current 30 mph
crash test in FMVSS No. 204. The
[[Page 22970]]
combination of the angled tests with unbelted dummies and the higher
speed tests with belted dummies may represent a more severe collision
scenario with respect to steering column deformation. Moreover, the
finite element modeling study suggests that a vehicle with steering
column displacement not in compliance with FMVSS No. 204 would also not
comply with FMVSS No. 208.
NHTSA believes that the reasoning in the 1995 NPRM still holds
true--that one of the most fundamental engineering considerations
manufacturers take into account in designing an air bag equipped
vehicle is to provide a secure platform for the airbag. This belief,
combined with the finite element modeling study demonstrating that
noncompliance with FMVSS No. 204 would likely also result in
noncompliance with FMVSS No. 208 and the strengthening of the FMVSS No.
208 testing, leads NHTSA to a tentative conclusion that compliance with
FMVSS No. 204 is no longer necessary for vehicles subject to FMVSS No.
208 frontal barrier crash testing. In other words, NHTSA tentatively
believes that the testing in FMVSS No. 208 is sufficient to ensure
limited steering column motion and aid in occupant protection.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166; delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
Regulatory Analyses
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
This proposed rule does not meet the criteria of a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, as amended by
Executive Orders 14215 and 13563. Therefore, the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this proposed rule under those
orders. This NPRM, if finalized as proposed, is also expected to be an
E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.
Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation
The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609 provides
that the regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ
from those taken by the United States to address similar issues, and
that in some cases the differences between them might not be necessary
and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and
compete internationally. It further recognizes that in meeting shared
challenges involving health, safety, 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 and can reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary
differences in regulatory requirements.
In addition, section 24211 of the Infrastructure, Investment, and
Jobs Act, Global Harmonization, provides that DOT ``shall cooperate, to
the maximum extent practicable, with foreign governments,
nongovernmental stakeholder groups, the motor vehicle industry, and
consumer groups with respect to global harmonization of vehicle
regulations as a means for improving motor vehicle safety.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ H.R. 3684 (117th Congress) (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While NHTSA is aware that some foreign regulations specify
requirements similar to those it is proposing for removal, NHTSA has
tentatively concluded that because the proposed change removes a
superfluous requirement it does not create any incompatibilities with
any foreign regulations.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), agencies must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rulemaking on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of
an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rulemaking will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. NHTSA has concluded and hereby certifies that this proposed
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities; therefore, an analysis is not included. This
proposed rule will only remove directives that are no longer needed.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This proposed rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and
Tribal governments, or the private sector of $100 million or more in
any one year. Thus, the rulemaking is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 13175
Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and
coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies
that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative
comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or
actions that 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. NHTSA has assessed the impact
of this proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that this
rulemaking would not have tribal implications that require consultation
under Executive Order 13175.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501-3520), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the
collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number. This proposed rule is deregulatory and so would
not impose any additional information collection requirements.
E-Government Act Compliance
NHTSA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, 2002 to
promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to
provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other purposes.
Executive Order 13132; Federalism Summary Impact Statement
NHTSA has examined this proposed rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255; Aug. 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 proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications
to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the
preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposed 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 have preemptive effect 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,
[[Page 22971]]
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 address the same
aspect of performance.
The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]compliance 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 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 the
existence of 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, NHTSA has considered whether
this proposed 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 proposed
rule and does not foresee any potential State requirements that might
conflict with it. NHTSA does not intend that this proposed rule preempt
state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor
vehicle manufacturers than that established by this proposed rule.
Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not
conflict with the standards proposed in this NPRM. Without any
conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common
law tort cause of action.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA believes this proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a
reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human
environment. The public is invited to comment on the impact of the
proposed agency action.
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 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.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of
preemption is discussed above in connection with E.O. 13132. 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.
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.'' 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 SAE (formerly, the
Society of Automotive Engineers). The NTTAA directs this agency to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
There are no consensus standards available with regards to the
motion of the steering column in a barrier test.
Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 and E.O. 13563 require each agency to write
all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain
language includes consideration of the following questions:
Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this proposal.
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.
Privacy Act
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through
www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking and
response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of
their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of
[[Page 22972]]
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).
Rule Summary
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed rule
can be found at regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2025-0032, in the SUMMARY
section of this proposed rule.
Public Participation
How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number indicated in this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe)
file, NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and
copy certain portions of your submissions.
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. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
If you wish the Docket 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, the Docket will
return the postcard by mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
You should submit a redacted ``public version'' of your comment
(including redacted versions of any additional documents or
attachments) to the docket using any of the methods identified under
ADDRESSES. This ``public version'' of your comment should contain only
the portions for which no claim of confidential treatment is made and
from which those portions for which confidential treatment is claimed
has been redacted. See below for further instructions on how to do
this.
You also need to submit a request for confidential treatment
directly to the Office of Chief Counsel. Requests for confidential
treatment are governed by 49 CFR part 512. Your request must set forth
the information specified in part 512. This includes the materials for
which confidentiality is being requested (as explained in more detail
below); supporting information, pursuant to Sec. 512.8; and a
certificate, pursuant to Sec. 512.4(b) and part 512, appendix A.
You are required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one
unredacted ``confidential version'' of the information for which you
are seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to Sec. 512.6, the words
``ENTIRE PAGE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION'' or ``CONFIDENTIAL
BUSINESS INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN BRACKETS'' (as applicable) must
appear at the top of each page containing information claimed to be
confidential. In the latter situation, where not all information on the
page is claimed to be confidential, identify each item of information
for which confidentiality is requested within brackets: ``[ ].''
You are also required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one
redacted ``public version'' of the information for which you are
seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to Sec. 512.5(a)(2), the
redacted ``public version'' should include redactions of any
information for which you are seeking confidential treatment (i.e., the
only information that should be unredacted is information for which you
are not seeking confidential treatment).
NHTSA is currently treating electronic submission as an acceptable
method for submitting confidential business information to the agency
under part 512. Please do not send a hardcopy of a request for
confidential treatment to NHTSA's headquarters. The request should be
sent to Dan Rabinovitz in the Office of the Chief Counsel at
[email protected]. You may either submit your request via email
or request a secure file transfer link. If you are submitting the
request via email, please also email a courtesy copy of the request to
John Piazza at [email protected].
Will the agency consider late comments?
We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments that the docket receives after
that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider
in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will
consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking
action.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may read the comments received by the docket at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated
above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the
internet. To read the comments on the internet, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file
comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Motor Vehicle Safety, Motor Vehicles.
For the reasons set forth above, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 571 as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
Subpart B--Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
0
2. Amend Sec. 571.204 by revising paragraph S2 to read as follows:
Sec. 571.204 Standard No. 204; Steering control rearward
displacement.
* * * * *
[[Page 22973]]
S2. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars and to
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. However, it does
not apply to vehicles certified to S14 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR
571.208). It also does not apply to walk-in vans or vehicles without
steering controls.
* * * * *
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95, 501.4, and
501.5.
Peter Simshauser,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2025-09738 Filed 5-27-25; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P