Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Windshield Zone Intrusion, 38372-38375 [E8-15210]

Download as PDF 38372 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 130 / Monday, July 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules governments to provide comments if they believe there will be an impact. D. Regulatory Flexibility Act. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), we must consider whether a proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. ‘‘Small entities’’ include small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations under 50,000. If you believe that revisions to the HMR relative to air packaging integrity could have a significant economic impact on small entities, please provide information on such impacts. E. Paperwork Reduction Act It is possible that a rulemaking action could impose new or revised information collection requirements. V. Regulatory Notices A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures This ANPRM is considered a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This ANPRM is considered significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). B. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned 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. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda. Issued in Washington, DC on July 1, 2008 under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 106. Edward T. Mazzullo, Acting Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety. [FR Doc. E8–15372 Filed 7–3–08; 8:45 am] jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS BILLING CODE 4910–60–P VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:17 Jul 03, 2008 Jkt 214001 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0124] RIN 2127–AK13 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Windshield Zone Intrusion National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). AGENCY: SUMMARY: This document proposes to rescind Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 219, ‘‘Windshield zone intrusion.’’ This proposed action results from NHTSA’s periodic review of its regulations to determine whether a continuing safety need exists for the standard under review. NHTSA tentatively concludes that the windshield zone intrusion standard is no longer necessary because other FMVSSs are now in place to meet the safety need that the standard had addressed. You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that the Docket receives them not later than September 5, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: DOT Docket Management Facility, M–30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • Fax: (202) 493–2551. Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should use the docket number of this document. You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202–366–9826. Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking Analyses and Notices. Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section DATES: PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to: http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr. David Sutula, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, Light Duty Vehicle Division at (202) 366–3273. His fax number is (202) 493–2739. For legal issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the Chief Counsel at (202) 366–2992. Her Fax number is (202) 366–3820. You may send mail to both of these officials at the following address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Periodic Review of Federal Regulations NHTSA has long recognized the importance of regularly reviewing its existing regulations to determine whether they need to be revised or revoked. NHTSA undertakes reviews of its regulations under, inter alia, the Department’s 1979 Regulatory Policies and Procedures, under Executive Order 12866 ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ and under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. section 501 et seq.). In addition, NHTSA conducts reviews pursuant to internal operating procedures. During a periodic review of its regulations, NHTSA has identified FMVSS No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, as a regulation that could possibly be removed as unnecessary. Background of FMVSS No. 219 The purpose of FMVSS No. 219 is to reduce crash injuries and fatalities that result from occupants contacting vehicle components displaced near or through the windshield. The standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds) or less, except for forward control vehicles, walk-in vantype vehicles or to open-body-type vehicles with fold-down or removable windshields. The final rule establishing FMVSS No. 219 was published on June 16, 1975 (40 FR 25462), and took effect on September 1, 1976. FMVSS No. 219 specifies limits on the displacement of vehicle parts from outside the occupant compartment into the windshield area during a 48 kilometer per hour (km/h) (30 mile per hour (mph)) frontal barrier crash test. The standard establishes a protected zone at the daylight opening (DLO) E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM 07JYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 130 / Monday, July 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules Because we believe that FMVSS No. 219 may be testing similar aspects of safety as FMVSS No. 208, we are concerned that the former may be redundant of the latter standard and may be imposing unnecessary costs or burdens in the manufacture of motor vehicles. Moreover, FMVSS No. 113, Hood Latch System, requires a hood latch system for all hoods, and a second position on that system to reduce incidents of inadvertent hood openings and to help limit displacement into the windshield area of motor vehicle components during a crash. Thus, given both the effect of FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS No. 113 in limiting windshield zone intrusion into the passenger area, we tentatively conclude that a safety need no longer exists to maintain FMVSS No. 219 as a safety standard. We thus propose rescinding the safety standard. NHTSA tentatively concludes that if a final rule is issued rescinding the standard, States would be free to regulate this aspect of performance formerly occupied by FMVSS No. 219. Comments are requested on these issues. NHTSA’s Review of FMVSS No. 219 and Its Proposal to Rescind jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS portion of the vehicle windshield. The protected zone is an area encompassing the width of the windshield and protrudes about 76 mm from the outer surface of the windshield. In the crash test, a protected zone template cut or formed from Styrofoam is affixed to the vehicle so that it delineates the protected zone and remains affixed throughout the crash test. The standard specifies that in a 48 km/h (30 mph) frontal rigid barrier crash test, no part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected zone template to a depth of more than 6 mm (0.25 inches) and no such part of a vehicle shall penetrate the inner surface of that portion of the windshield, within the DLO, below the protected zone. The standard was developed to decrease the likelihood of injury resulting from the intrusion of a part of the vehicle, such as the hood, into the occupant compartment through the windshield opening, or into the zone slightly forward of the windshield aperture. We propose that if the change proposed in this NPRM is made final, that it take effect 180 days after the publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Comment is requested on this proposed lead time. The agency has tentatively concluded that the safety need that FMVSS No. 219 addresses is being met by certain other FMVSSs. FMVSS No. 219 was necessary in 1975, when NHTSA had no safety standard in which it specified crash testing to assess any hazards to which occupants were exposed as a result of such intrusion. Manufacturers responded to the standard to ameliorate windshield zone intrusions, and as a result there has not been a compliance issue with FMVSS No. 219 since shortly after its inception. Subsequently, in May 2000, NHTSA issued and substantially enhanced FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to incorporate an unbelted test of 50th percentile male and 5th percentile female dummies at 40 km/h (25 mph) and a belted test of those two dummy sizes at 56 km/h (35 mph). We tentatively conclude that the dummy performance requirements of FMVSS No. 208 frontal crash tests will reflect any blunt impact injuries due to zone intrusions at the windshield. Likewise, we tentatively conclude that the air bag will aid in preventing any lacerative injuries due to zone intrusions at the windshield, and so there is no continuing need for a standard to specifically assess intrusion hazards to occupants from vehicle components external to the vehicle compartment during a frontal crash. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:17 Jul 03, 2008 Jkt 214001 Lead Time Regulatory Analyses and Notices A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’ The rulemaking action is also not considered to be significant under the Department’s Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). This rulemaking would rescind FMVSS No. 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion, in order to alleviate motor vehicle manufacturers from requirements that may already be addressed by other Federal motor vehicle safety standards, notably FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and FMVSS No. 113, Hood Latch Systems. Any cost savings resulting from the rescission of FMVSS No. 219 would be so minimal that the savings cannot be calculated. FMVSS No. 219 specifies the same crash test conditions as the 30 mph test condition in FMVSS No. 208. When NHTSA crash tests a vehicle to the test conditions of FMVSS No. 208, the agency also assesses the vehicle’s PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 38373 compliance with FMVSS No. 219. NHTSA believes that vehicle manufacturers that conduct FMVSS No. 208 crash testing are also simultaneously testing vehicles to FMVSS No. 219. Because manufacturers will continue to crash test vehicles to FMVSS No. 208, removing FMVSS No. 219 would not result in a marked cost savings to manufacturers. Rescinding FMVSS No. 219 would only result in minimal cost savings for manufacturers as an assessment of the windshield zone intrusion would no longer have to be made. B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) NHTSA has examined today’s proposed 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 proposed rule does not have federalism implications because the proposal 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.’’ Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect of today’s proposed rule. As a general matter NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in at least two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemptive 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). This proposed rule, if made final, would result in regulatory relief for motor vehicle manufacturers, and would have no effect on the States or local governments. NHTSA tentatively concludes that if the agency rescinds FMVSS No. 219, States would be free to regulate this aspect of motor vehicle performance. Second, in addition to the express preemption noted above, the Supreme Court has also recognized that State requirements imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law, can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict is discerned, the E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM 07JYP1 38374 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 130 / Monday, July 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes their State requirements unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). NHTSA has not outlined such potential State requirements in today’s rulemaking, however, in part because this proposed rule, if made final, would rescind FMVSS No. 219. We have tentatively concluded that if NHTSA rescinds FMVSS No. 219, States would be free to regulate this aspect of motor vehicle performance. jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS C. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ we have considered whether this proposed rule would have any retroactive effect. We conclude that it would not have such an effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal standard, except to the extent that the State requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for the State’s use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court. D. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it 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 governmental jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Head of the Agency has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the Regulatory Flexibility VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:17 Jul 03, 2008 Jkt 214001 Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and certifies that this proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The statement of the factual basis for the certification is that since NHTSA proposes to remove FMVSS No. 219, any small manufacturers of passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks or buses would be provided regulatory relief. Accordingly, the agency believes that this proposal would at most, have a minimal beneficial cost effect for small business manufacturers of motor vehicles subject to FMVSS No. 219. E. National Environmental Policy Act We have analyzed this proposal for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment. F. Paperwork Reduction Act NHTSA has determined that, if made final, this proposed rule would not impose any ‘‘collection of information’’ burdens on the public, within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In this NPRM, we propose to remove FMVSS No. 219, which has no collection of information requirements associated with it. This rulemaking action would not impose any filing or recordkeeping requirements on any manufacturer or any other party. G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). There are no available and applicable voluntary consensus standards that we can use in this notice of proposed rulemaking. H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This proposal would not result in costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. Thus, this proposal is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. I. Plain Language Executive Order 12866 requires 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 is not clear? —Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand? —Would more (but shorter) sections be better? —Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams? —What else could we do to make this rulemaking easier to understand? If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this NPRM. J. 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. 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 of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long.1 We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents 1 See E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM 49 CFR 553.21. 07JYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 130 / Monday, July 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments. Please submit your comments by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, M–30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • Fax: (202) 493–2251. 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 http://www.whitehouse.gov/ omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT’s guidelines may be accessed at http:// dmses.dot.gov/submit/ DataQualityGuidelines.pdf. jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received? If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail. How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information? If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation.2 In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket by one of the methods set forth above. 2 See 49 CFR 512. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:17 Jul 03, 2008 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 received after that date. Therefore, if interested persons believe that any new information the agency places in the docket affects their comments, they may submit comments after the closing date concerning how the agency should consider that information for the final rule. If a comment is received 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 materials placed in the docket for this document (e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other interested persons) at any time by going to http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also read the materials at the Docket Management Facility by going to the street address given above under ADDRESSES. The Docket Management Facility is open between 9 am and 5 pm Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber products, Tires. In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR part 571), be amended 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, and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. § 571.219 [Removed] 2. Section 571.219 is removed and reserved. Issued on: June 30, 2008. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E8–15210 Filed 7–3–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 38375 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 404 [Docket No. 080227317–8741–01] RIN 0648–AW44 Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument Proclamation Provisions National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC); United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Department of the Interior (DOI). ACTION: Proposed rule; request for public comments. AGENCIES: SUMMARY: NOAA and the USFWS are proposing regulations to establish a ship reporting system for the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. This action would implement measures adopted by the International Maritime Organization requiring notification by ships passing through the Monument without interruption. A draft environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. A copy of the draft environmental assessment is available for public review at http://hawaiireef.noaa.gov/ and comment concurrently with this proposed rule. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule and the draft environmental assessment will be accepted if received on or before August 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: • Federal e Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit electronic comments via the Federal e Rulemaking Portal rather than by e-mail; • Mail: T. Aulani Wilhelm, Monument Superintendent (NOAA); 6600 Kalanianaole Highway, 300, Honolulu, HI 96825. Copies of the draft environmental assessment may be viewed and downloaded at http:// hawaiireef.noaa.gov/. Paperwork burden: Submit written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the information collection requirements contained in this proposed rule by e- E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM 07JYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 130 (Monday, July 7, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38372-38375]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-15210]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0124]
RIN 2127-AK13


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Windshield Zone Intrusion

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document proposes to rescind Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) No. 219, ``Windshield zone intrusion.'' This proposed 
action results from NHTSA's periodic review of its regulations to 
determine whether a continuing safety need exists for the standard 
under review. NHTSA tentatively concludes that the windshield zone 
intrusion standard is no longer necessary because other FMVSSs are now 
in place to meet the safety need that the standard had addressed.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that the 
Docket receives them not later than September 5, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket identified in the 
heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: DOT Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room 
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern 
time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: (202) 493-2551.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should use the 
docket number of this document.
    You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9826.
    Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking 
Analyses and Notices.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public 
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this 
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to: http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr. 
David Sutula, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, Light Duty Vehicle 
Division at (202) 366-3273. His fax number is (202) 493-2739.
    For legal issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the 
Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992. Her Fax number is (202) 366-3820.
    You may send mail to both of these officials at the following 
address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Periodic Review of Federal Regulations

    NHTSA has long recognized the importance of regularly reviewing its 
existing regulations to determine whether they need to be revised or 
revoked. NHTSA undertakes reviews of its regulations under, inter alia, 
the Department's 1979 Regulatory Policies and Procedures, under 
Executive Order 12866 ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' and under 
section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. section 501 et 
seq.). In addition, NHTSA conducts reviews pursuant to internal 
operating procedures. During a periodic review of its regulations, 
NHTSA has identified FMVSS No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, as a 
regulation that could possibly be removed as unnecessary.

Background of FMVSS No. 219

    The purpose of FMVSS No. 219 is to reduce crash injuries and 
fatalities that result from occupants contacting vehicle components 
displaced near or through the windshield. The standard applies to 
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with 
a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds) 
or less, except for forward control vehicles, walk-in van-type vehicles 
or to open-body-type vehicles with fold-down or removable windshields. 
The final rule establishing FMVSS No. 219 was published on June 16, 
1975 (40 FR 25462), and took effect on September 1, 1976.
    FMVSS No. 219 specifies limits on the displacement of vehicle parts 
from outside the occupant compartment into the windshield area during a 
48 kilometer per hour (km/h) (30 mile per hour (mph)) frontal barrier 
crash test. The standard establishes a protected zone at the daylight 
opening (DLO)

[[Page 38373]]

portion of the vehicle windshield. The protected zone is an area 
encompassing the width of the windshield and protrudes about 76 mm from 
the outer surface of the windshield. In the crash test, a protected 
zone template cut or formed from Styrofoam is affixed to the vehicle so 
that it delineates the protected zone and remains affixed throughout 
the crash test. The standard specifies that in a 48 km/h (30 mph) 
frontal rigid barrier crash test, no part of the vehicle outside the 
occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components 
designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate 
the protected zone template to a depth of more than 6 mm (0.25 inches) 
and no such part of a vehicle shall penetrate the inner surface of that 
portion of the windshield, within the DLO, below the protected zone. 
The standard was developed to decrease the likelihood of injury 
resulting from the intrusion of a part of the vehicle, such as the 
hood, into the occupant compartment through the windshield opening, or 
into the zone slightly forward of the windshield aperture.

NHTSA's Review of FMVSS No. 219 and Its Proposal to Rescind

    The agency has tentatively concluded that the safety need that 
FMVSS No. 219 addresses is being met by certain other FMVSSs. FMVSS No. 
219 was necessary in 1975, when NHTSA had no safety standard in which 
it specified crash testing to assess any hazards to which occupants 
were exposed as a result of such intrusion. Manufacturers responded to 
the standard to ameliorate windshield zone intrusions, and as a result 
there has not been a compliance issue with FMVSS No. 219 since shortly 
after its inception. Subsequently, in May 2000, NHTSA issued and 
substantially enhanced FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to 
incorporate an unbelted test of 50th percentile male and 5th percentile 
female dummies at 40 km/h (25 mph) and a belted test of those two dummy 
sizes at 56 km/h (35 mph). We tentatively conclude that the dummy 
performance requirements of FMVSS No. 208 frontal crash tests will 
reflect any blunt impact injuries due to zone intrusions at the 
windshield. Likewise, we tentatively conclude that the air bag will aid 
in preventing any lacerative injuries due to zone intrusions at the 
windshield, and so there is no continuing need for a standard to 
specifically assess intrusion hazards to occupants from vehicle 
components external to the vehicle compartment during a frontal crash.
    Because we believe that FMVSS No. 219 may be testing similar 
aspects of safety as FMVSS No. 208, we are concerned that the former 
may be redundant of the latter standard and may be imposing unnecessary 
costs or burdens in the manufacture of motor vehicles. Moreover, FMVSS 
No. 113, Hood Latch System, requires a hood latch system for all hoods, 
and a second position on that system to reduce incidents of inadvertent 
hood openings and to help limit displacement into the windshield area 
of motor vehicle components during a crash. Thus, given both the effect 
of FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS No. 113 in limiting windshield zone 
intrusion into the passenger area, we tentatively conclude that a 
safety need no longer exists to maintain FMVSS No. 219 as a safety 
standard. We thus propose rescinding the safety standard. NHTSA 
tentatively concludes that if a final rule is issued rescinding the 
standard, States would be free to regulate this aspect of performance 
formerly occupied by FMVSS No. 219. Comments are requested on these 
issues.

Lead Time

    We propose that if the change proposed in this NPRM is made final, 
that it take effect 180 days after the publication of the final rule in 
the Federal Register. Comment is requested on this proposed lead time.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review.'' The rulemaking action is also not considered to be 
significant under the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures 
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
    This rulemaking would rescind FMVSS No. 219 Windshield Zone 
Intrusion, in order to alleviate motor vehicle manufacturers from 
requirements that may already be addressed by other Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards, notably FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash 
Protection, and FMVSS No. 113, Hood Latch Systems.
    Any cost savings resulting from the rescission of FMVSS No. 219 
would be so minimal that the savings cannot be calculated. FMVSS No. 
219 specifies the same crash test conditions as the 30 mph test 
condition in FMVSS No. 208. When NHTSA crash tests a vehicle to the 
test conditions of FMVSS No. 208, the agency also assesses the 
vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 219. NHTSA believes that vehicle 
manufacturers that conduct FMVSS No. 208 crash testing are also 
simultaneously testing vehicles to FMVSS No. 219. Because manufacturers 
will continue to crash test vehicles to FMVSS No. 208, removing FMVSS 
No. 219 would not result in a marked cost savings to manufacturers. 
Rescinding FMVSS No. 219 would only result in minimal cost savings for 
manufacturers as an assessment of the windshield zone intrusion would 
no longer have to be made.

B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's proposed 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 proposed rule does not have federalism 
implications because the proposal 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.''
    Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect 
of today's proposed rule. As a general matter NHTSA rules can have 
preemptive effect in at least two ways. First, the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemptive 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). This proposed rule, if made final, would result in 
regulatory relief for motor vehicle manufacturers, and would have no 
effect on the States or local governments. NHTSA tentatively concludes 
that if the agency rescinds FMVSS No. 219, States would be free to 
regulate this aspect of motor vehicle performance.
    Second, in addition to the express preemption noted above, the 
Supreme Court has also recognized that State requirements imposed on 
motor vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort 
law, can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a 
NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict is discerned, the

[[Page 38374]]

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes their State requirements 
unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 
(2000). NHTSA has not outlined such potential State requirements in 
today's rulemaking, however, in part because this proposed rule, if 
made final, would rescind FMVSS No. 219. We have tentatively concluded 
that if NHTSA rescinds FMVSS No. 219, States would be free to regulate 
this aspect of motor vehicle performance.

C. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' we 
have considered whether this proposed rule would have any retroactive 
effect. We conclude that it would not have such an effect. Under 49 
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable 
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal 
standard, except to the extent that the State requirement imposes a 
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for 
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial 
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a 
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before 
parties may file suit in court.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it 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 governmental jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    The Head of the Agency has considered the effects of this 
rulemaking action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.) and certifies that this proposal would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The 
statement of the factual basis for the certification is that since 
NHTSA proposes to remove FMVSS No. 219, any small manufacturers of 
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks or buses would 
be provided regulatory relief. Accordingly, the agency believes that 
this proposal would at most, have a minimal beneficial cost effect for 
small business manufacturers of motor vehicles subject to FMVSS No. 
219.

E. National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this proposal for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have any 
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    NHTSA has determined that, if made final, this proposed rule would 
not impose any ``collection of information'' burdens on the public, 
within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In 
this NPRM, we propose to remove FMVSS No. 219, which has no collection 
of information requirements associated with it. This rulemaking action 
would not impose any filing or recordkeeping requirements on any 
manufacturer or any other party.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory 
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE). There are no available and applicable voluntary 
consensus standards that we can use in this notice of proposed 
rulemaking.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more 
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base 
year of 1995). This proposal would not result in costs of $100 million 
or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. Thus, this proposal is not subject 
to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

I. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires 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 is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
--What else could we do to make this rulemaking easier to understand?

    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in your comments on this NPRM.

J. 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.

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 of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be 
more than 15 pages long.\1\ We established this limit to encourage you 
to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may 
attach necessary additional documents

[[Page 38375]]

to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please submit your comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room 
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern 
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: (202) 493-2251.
    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 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's 
guidelines may be accessed at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/
DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket Management to 
notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, 
stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon 
receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by 
mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. When you send a comment 
containing information claimed to be confidential business information, 
you should include a cover letter setting forth the information 
specified in our confidential business information regulation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 49 CFR 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted 
the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket by one of 
the methods set forth above.

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 received after that date. 
Therefore, if interested persons believe that any new information the 
agency places in the docket affects their comments, they may submit 
comments after the closing date concerning how the agency should 
consider that information for the final rule.
    If a comment is received 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 materials placed in the docket for this document 
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other 
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also 
read the materials at the Docket Management Facility by going to the 
street address given above under ADDRESSES. The Docket Management 
Facility is open between 9 am and 5 pm Eastern Time, Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber 
products, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that the Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR part 571), be amended 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, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


Sec.  571.219  [Removed]

    2. Section 571.219 is removed and reserved.

    Issued on: June 30, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
 [FR Doc. E8-15210 Filed 7-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P