[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 103 (Friday, May 30, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22983-22986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-09744]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0039]
RIN 2127-AM90
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; No. 216; Roof Crush
Resistance, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216a; Roof Crush
Resistance; Upgraded Standard
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT)
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA is proposing to remove the obsolete Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 216, related to roof crush
resistance.
DATES: Comments must be received July 29, 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
Carla Rush (email: [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 remove the obsolete
FMVSS No. 216, Roof crush resistance, Applicable unless a vehicle is
certified to Sec. 571.216a, which originally went into effect on
September 1, 1973. It established strength requirements for the
passenger compartment roof of vehicles. NHTSA has since implemented an
updated roof crush resistance standard in FMVSS No. 216a, for which a
multi-year phase-in required full compliance by Model Year 2016. Since
FMVSS No. 216 is no longer necessary, we propose to remove it and
modify FMVSS No. 216a to clarify its applicability. We seek comment on
all aspects of this proposal.
FMVSS No. 216 has been amended several times since its inception,
such as extending the requirements, originally only for passenger cars,
to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV) and modifying the quasi-static
testing procedure. However, the most recent and substantial amendment
occurred in 2009, which established FMVSS No. 216a as the upgraded
version of FMVSS No. 216. The FMVSS No. 216a final rule was published
in 2009 (74 FR 22348) and laid out a multi-year phase-in compliance
requirement beginning in 2012 and full compliance by model year
2016.\1\ Some of the major changes in FMVSS No. 216a included raising
the Strength to Weight Ratio (SWR) threshold from 1.5 to 3.0 for
passenger cars, changing from a one-sided to a two-sided test,
expanding to heavier passenger vehicles (GVWR greater than 6,000 lb to
10,000 lb or less) with the SWR threshold of 1.5, and introducing
headroom maintenance criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Vehicles produced in more than one stage and altered
vehicles were not required to meet the upgraded requirements until
September 1, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the full implementation of FMVSS No. 216a completed, FMVSS No.
216 is no longer applicable. We propose to eliminate FMVSS No. 216 in
its entirety and amend FMVSS No. 216a to clarify its applicability.
This action does not affect the applicability of 49 U.S.C. 30122, which
prohibits certain entities from making inoperative any part of a device
or element of design installed in vehicle pursuant to an FMVSS
applicable on the date of manufacture.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166; delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
Regulatory Analyses
Rule Summary
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule can be
found at regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2025-0039, in the SUMMARY
section of this proposed rule.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
As with the rule proposed for rescission, this 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 rule
under those orders. This regulation is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory
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
[[Page 22984]]
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.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ H.R. 3684 (117th Congress) (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the proposed changes are deleting obsolete regulatory text,
they do not implicate any issues regarding international regulatory
cooperation.
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 rule 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 rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. NHTSA has concluded and hereby certifies that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities; therefore, an analysis is not included. This proposed
recission rule will remove FMVSS No. 216 which is no longer applicable.
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 rule 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 rule
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; rather,
it would reduce future collection requirements by removing reporting
burdens.
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, 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
[[Page 22985]]
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.
Because the proposed changes are deleting obsolete regulatory text,
they do not implicate any issues regarding consensus standards.
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 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).
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.
[[Page 22986]]
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
Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
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 49 CFR 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.
Sec. 571.216 [Removed]
0
2. Remove Sec. 571.216.
Sec. 571.216a [Amended]
0
3. Amend Sec. 571.216a by removing S3.1(c).
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95, 501.4, and
501.5.
Peter Simshauser,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2025-09744 Filed 5-27-25; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P