20172 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

S5.4.1 * * *

(b) Meet the requirements of S4.2 (e)

and (f) of FMVSS No. 209 (§ 571.209);

and

* * * * *

Issued on April 29, 1996.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–11026 Filed 5–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 95–48; Notice 2]

RIN 2127–AF71

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs,

and Hub Caps

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this final rule document,

NHTSA rescinds the Federal motor

vehicle safety standard on wheel nuts,

wheel discs, and hub caps. This action

is part of the agency’s efforts to

implement the President’s Regulatory

Reinvention Initiative to either

eliminate regulations, if determined to

be unnecessary, or to make them easier

to understand and to apply. The agency

takes this action based on several

conclusions. It concludes that there is

no safety problem. Further, the standard

is unavoidably overly design-restrictive.

Moreover, to the extent that there are

any safety concerns regarding the

practices of motorists in installing

wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps

that have winged projections, the

agency believes those concerns are more

appropriately addressed by State laws

which regulate vehicle use than by a

Federal motor vehicle safety standard,

which regulates the performance of new

motor vehicles and motor vehicle

equipment as manufactured.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is

effective June 5, 1996.

Petitions for Reconsideration: Any

petitions for reconsideration of this final

rule must be received by NHTSA no

later than June 20, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Any petition for

reconsideration of this final rule should

refer to the docket and notice number

set forth in the heading of this notice

and be submitted to: Administrator,

NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical issues: Mr. Clarke Harper,

Office of Crashworthiness, NHTSA,

telephone (202) 366–4916, FAX number

(202) 366–4329. Mr. Harper’s e-mail

address is charper@nhtsa.dot.gov.

For legal issues: Ms. Dorothy Nakama,

Office of Chief Counsel, NCC–20,

telephone (202) 366–2992, FAX (202)

366–3820.

Both may be reached at the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington,

D.C. 20590. Comments should not be

sent or faxed to these persons, but

should be sent to the Docket Section.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

President’s Regulatory Reinvention

Initiative

Pursuant to the March 4, 1995

directive ‘‘Regulatory Reinvention

Initiative’’ from the President to the

heads of departments and agencies,

NHTSA undertook a review of its

regulations and directives. During the

course of this review, NHTSA identified

certain regulations that could be

rescinded as unnecessary. Among these

regulations is Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts,

Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR

§ 571.211). In the following section,

NHTSA describes how it reviewed the

background of the standard, and

explains why it came to the conclusion

that the safety problem is a minor one,

that Standard No. 211 is unavoidably

overly design-restrictive, and that wheel

nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps having

winged projections are more

appropriately addressed by State laws

which regulate vehicle use than by a

Federal motor vehicle safety standard,

which regulates new motor vehicles and

motor vehicle equipment. For these

reasons, NHTSA rescinds Standard No.

211.

Background

Standard No. 211 was issued in 1967

(32 FR 2408) as one of the initial Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Since

Standard No. 211 applies to motor

vehicles and motor vehicle equipment,

both vehicle manufacturers and

manufacturers of motor vehicle

equipment must meet the requirements

of Standard No. 211. For many years,

Standard No. 211 prohibited all wheel

nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps

(referred to generically hereafter as ‘‘hub

caps’’) that incorporate ‘‘winged

projections,’’ based on a concern that

such projections can pose a hazard to

pedestrians and cyclists.

On January 15, 1993, NHTSA

published in the Federal Register (58

FR 4582) a final rule amending Standard

No. 211 to permit ‘‘winged projections’’

on hub caps if, when the hub caps are

installed on a wheel rim, the projections

do not extend beyond the plane of the

wheel rim. NHTSA amended Standard

No. 211 after concluding that ‘‘winged

projections’’ that do not extend beyond

the plane of the wheel do not

compromise pedestrian or cyclist safety.

Persons who are interested in a more

detailed explanation for that conclusion

are referred to the January 1993 final

rule and the preceding notice of

proposed rulemaking (57 FR 24207,

June 8, 1992).

The January 1993 amendment was the

culmination of a rulemaking proceeding

initiated in response to a petition for

rulemaking submitted by several hub

cap manufacturers. After the

amendment was published, however,

NHTSA received information from John

Russell Deane III, an attorney

representing the petitioners, indicating

that the amendment did not provide the

regulatory relief that had been requested

by the petitioners and anticipated by the

agency in issuing the amendment.

Mr. Deane stated that certain

preambular language in the January

1993 final rule suggested that

manufacturers may manufacture and

distribute hub caps incorporating

winged projections only if the

manufacturer is sure the product does

not fit ‘‘any other combinations’’ of

axles and wheel rims which would

result in the projections extending

beyond the plane of the wheel. He

stated, however, that a typical

decorative hub cap incorporating

winged projections has a standardized

attachment design which is identical to

wingless hexagonal cap attachment

designs. In other words, the method of

attaching adapters to wheels is

essentially standardized. Thus, the

winged hub caps could be installed on

any wheels, not only on deep wheels on

which they would not extend beyond

the plane of the wheel, but also

shallower wheels on which the

projections would protrude beyond

such plane. Mr. Deane therefore

concluded that ensuring compliance of

decorative hub caps incorporating

winged projections on all wheels would

be virtually impossible, and that the

practical effect of the amendment is to

continue to prevent the manufacture

and distribution of hub caps

incorporating winged projections.

After reexamining the regulatory

language, NHTSA concluded Mr. Deane

was correct. The regulatory language

requires that each hub cap with winged

projections, as used in any physically

compatible combination of axle and

wheel rim, may not extend beyond the

plane of the wheel. NHTSA determined

the dilemma could be addressed only by

amending the regulatory language, not,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 20173

as Mr. Deane suggested, by issuing a

letter of clarification. (A more detailed

explanation of the issue is provided in

NHTSA’s June 19, 1995 notice of

proposed rulemaking (60 FR 31947).)

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking To

Rescind Standard No. 211

In reviewing Standard No. 211 under

the President’s directive, NHTSA was

faced with a regulation that had the

practical effect of preventing the

manufacture of all hubcaps with winged

projections, notwithstanding the fact

that the agency concluded that such

hubcaps only pose a potential safety

concern when used in circumstances in

which the winged projections extend

beyond the plane of the wheel. NHTSA

strongly believes that its safety

standards should not be overly designrestrictive and therefore considered

whether the current standard, or any

safety standard, is both an effective and

appropriate means of addressing the

safety of winged projections that extend

beyond the plane of the wheel.

The agency tentatively concluded that

the language of Standard No. 211 is not

an appropriate means to ensure safe use

of hub caps incorporating winged

projections. Therefore, on June 19, 1995

(60 FR 31947), NHTSA published a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

to rescind Standard No. 211. In the

NPRM, NHTSA tentatively concluded

that the potential safety concern

primarily relates to how hub caps with

winged projections are installed, rather

than how they are manufactured, and

that the issue is therefore more

appropriately addressed by the States

than by a Federal motor vehicle safety

standard. The agency therefore

proposed to rescind Standard No. 211.

First, NHTSA stated its belief that,

because of product liability

considerations, it is in the interest of

vehicle manufacturers not to install

unsafe hub caps, such as those with

winged projections extending beyond

the plane of the wheel, on their new

vehicles. Vehicle manufacturers can

ensure that winged hub caps are not

installed in unsafe hub cap/wheel

combinations since they can control

which combinations are authorized. The

only potential safety concern therefore

relates to the availability and

installation of aftermarket winged hub

caps.

Second, as discussed above, the

regulatory dilemma facing NHTSA is

that hub caps with winged projections

that are safe for relatively deep wheels,

since the projections do not extend

beyond the plane of those wheels, might

be unsafe on other, shallower wheels.

While the agency recognizes that a total

ban on hub caps with winged

projections would ensure safety, it

would also be overly restrictive on

vehicle and hub cap design.

The agency proposed to solve this

dilemma by ceasing to regulate the

manufacture of hub caps incorporating

winged projections and leaving it to the

States to regulate the installation of hub

caps incorporating winged projections.

The potential safety problem is not how

such hub caps are manufactured but

instead how they are installed; i.e.,

whether they are installed on wheels

shallow enough to cause the winged

projections to extend beyond the plane

of the wheel. While NHTSA does not

have the authority to regulate the use of

vehicles, the States do. Moreover, all

States already regulate the use of

vehicles and, to the extent that the

States determine that regulations are

needed in this area, they can issue ones

which are not unnecessarily designrestrictive. The States can do this by

simply prohibiting the installation or

use of hub caps incorporating winged

projections on wheels so shallow that

the projections extend beyond the plane

of the wheel.

Third, NHTSA stated its belief that

rescission of Standard No. 211 would

not compromise safety since the

potential safety problem addressed by

the standard has always been virtually

nonexistent. Moreover, the agency

stated its belief that, should there be any

significant increase in the installation of

hubcaps with winged projections in a

manner that causes injuries to

pedestrians, the States could address

that problem through their motor

vehicle use regulations.

Public Comments on the NPRM and

NHTSA’s Response

NHTSA received comments from the

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

(IIHS), the Association of International

Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM),

Chrysler Corporation, the State of

Connecticut and John Russell Deane III,

on behalf of Consolidated International

Automotive, Inc., Dayton Wheel

Products and Gorilla Automotive

Products. Mr. Deane enclosed copies of

letters from 22 automotive parts

manufacturers, wholesalers and

retailers, all of which expressed support

for rescinding Standard No. 211.

AIAM, Chrysler, Mr. Deane and the

wheel industry representatives either

favored rescission or did not oppose

rescission of Standard No. 211. AIAM

stated that since pedestrian safety is also

a concern in Japan and Europe, ‘‘[I]f the

Standard were to be removed AIAM

member companies would not provide

wheel nuts, wheel discs, or hub caps

that present a hazard.’’ Mr. Deane

agreed with NHTSA that product

liability concerns will induce vehicle

manufacturers not to install unsafe hub

caps and will compel aftermarket

manufacturers and installers to inform

consumers of the ‘‘intended use

combinations’’ and to install the

equipment in accordance with that

information. Mr. Deane did not specify

what he meant by ‘‘intended use

combinations.’’ NHTSA presumes that

Mr. Deane meant limits recommended

by hub cap manufacturers on

combinations of wheel rims, axle

lengths, and wheel depths, that are to be

used in conjunction with a given hub

cap incorporating winged projections.

The automotive parts manufacturers and

distributors did not provide any

supporting data or raise any issues.

IIHS and Connecticut opposed

rescinding Standard No. 211 and

provided numerous reasons for their

opposition. NHTSA addresses each of

IIHS’ and Connecticut’s comments

below.

Should NHTSA Retain Standard No.

211 and Impose More Design

Restrictions

IIHS asserts that the way to protect

the public from ‘‘hazards created by a

design that is safe in some

configurations but not in others, is to

limit the design choices to the safe

ones.’’ IIHS was concerned that NHTSA

balanced the manufacturers’ interests in

having more design choices for hub caps

versus public safety and decided in

favor of the manufacturers. IIHS argues

that no ‘‘scintilla’’ of evidence supports

NHTSA’s proposal. Similarly,

Connecticut stated it would be ‘‘[m]ore

appropriate to relax the current standard

in a way that would be less design

restrictive.’’

Neither IIHS nor Connecticut

provided any data to show a safety

problem associated with winged

projections on wheels. Additionally,

neither of them suggested how the

agency might amend Standard No. 211

to make it less design restrictive and

‘‘limit the design choices to the safe

ones.’’ As explained in the background

section, NHTSA has attempted to find

out how to limit design choices to the

‘‘safe ones’’ for the past three years.

Since the agency has not been able to

find a means other than outright

prohibition of the hub caps

incorporating winged projections and

has found no evidence of a safety

problem, the appropriate course of

action is to rescind Standard No. 211.
20174 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

State Law Issues

Two state law issues were raised in

the public comments. First, the IIHS

stated: ‘‘The availability of potential

state regulatory action and possible

product liability suits to replace an

existing [FMVSS] is not a sufficient

basis to justify rescinding the standard.’’

The factors mentioned by IIHS are not

the primary basis for the rescission, but

are additional considerations that weigh

in favor of rescission. The primary issue

is safety. IIHS believes that there is a

risk to safety and that it is posed by the

vehicle or equipment design. NHTSA

believes that the design of the vehicle or

equipment itself would not inherently

create a risk to pedestrian or cyclist

safety. It is the particular combination of

components as assembled by consumers

that determines whether a risk to safety

is created.

NHTSA believes that Standard No.

211 as originally written (i.e.,

completely banning hub caps

incorporating winged projections of any

design) was unduly restrictive and that

State regulation offers a less

burdensome, more targeted alternative

for achieving the same end. As stated in

the NPRM, the same end could be

achieved by States placing restrictions

on the installation of winged hub caps

on shallow wheels.

The second state law issue was raised

by Connecticut. Connecticut stated that

in the absence of Standard No. 211, the

States would have to regulate. As a

result, a vehicle manufacturer may have

to meet as many as 50 different State

requirements.

As stated in the NPRM (see 60 FR at

31948), NHTSA believes that States can

issue regulations that do not directly

regulate hub cap design but rather

prohibit inappropriate installation of

any wheel devices with winged

projections, e.g., installation so that the

projections extend beyond the plane of

the wheel. If each State enacted a

similar law prohibiting such

installation, there would not be ‘‘50

different state requirements.’’

Product Liability

Connecticut appears to state that

small aftermarket parts manufacturers

are often unaware of or not concerned

with product liability issues. According

to the commenter, such small

manufacturers are often not concerned

about product liability because they are

not aware of the possibility of liability

until after the fact, i.e., until after they

have been sued.

As NHTSA already noted in its

response to IIHS, product liability

factors are not the primary basis for this

action. Further, the agency does not

believe that small manufacturers or

other small businesses are unresponsive

to the potential product liability

implications of hub caps incorporating

winged projections being used in an

unsafe manner, and causing injury. The

prospect of product liability lawsuits is

faced by any company doing business in

the United States. As earlier noted, Mr.

Deane, who represents many hub cap

manufacturers, dealers, and suppliers,

agreed with NHTSA that product

liability concerns will induce vehicle

manufacturers not to make any unsafe

installations of hub caps incorporating

winged projections and will induce

aftermarket manufacturers and installers

to inform consumers of suggested safe

combinations and to install the

equipment in accordance with safe use.

Possibility of Reintroducing a Winged

Hub Cap Problem

IIHS commented that: ‘‘NHTSA’s

proposal could reintroduce a problem

that was eliminated by the original

standard almost 30 years ago.’’

NHTSA does not agree with IIHS’

concern. IIHS offers no evidence to

support its position. Data available to

NHTSA indicate that a ‘‘reintroduction’’

of a problem is unlikely, because it has

never been established that a problem

existed in the first instance. In the 1992

NPRM to amend Standard No. 211,

NHTSA examined various data sources

to determine the extent of injuries from

contact by pedestrians, motorcyclists,

and bicyclists with wheels and hub

caps, and to assess the potential for

injuries if winged projections were

incorporated on hub caps. NHTSA

concluded: ‘‘The data * * * do not

indicate that since 1979, significant

injury has been caused to pedestrians or

cyclists as a result of accidental contact

with wheels or hub caps.’’ (57 FR at

24208). NHTSA has received no data or

other information refuting the

conclusions in the 1992 NPRM. No data

relevant to the potential injury issue

were offered in response to the June

1995 NPRM.

Effective Date

In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed that

if a final rule rescinding Standard No.

211 is published, the effective date for

the final rule be 45 days after

publication in the Federal Register. The

only commenter addressing this issue,

Mr. Deane, favored the final rule taking

effect 30 days after its publication in the

Federal Register. NHTSA received no

comments opposing an effective date 30

days after Federal Register publication.

Thus, the agency determines that there

is good cause shown that an effective

date earlier than 180 days after issuance

is in the public interest.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

1. Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This final rule was not reviewed

under Executive Order 12866

(Regulatory Planning and Review).

NHTSA has analyzed the impact of this

rulemaking action and determined that

it is not ‘‘significant’’ within the

meaning of the Department of

Transportation’s regulatory policies and

procedures. The final rule does not

impose any costs or yield any

significant savings. It instead relieves a

restriction and thereby provides vehicle

and equipment manufacturers with

greater flexibility in the design and

installation of wheel nuts, wheel discs,

and hub caps. Moreover, consumers will

likely have a greater choice of hub cap

styles. The impacts will be so minimal

that preparation of a full regulatory

evaluation is not warranted.

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has also considered the

impacts of this final rule under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby

certify that this final rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. As

explained above, the rule will not

impose any new requirements but will

relieve a restriction for hub caps with

winged projections. The final rule will

likely have a small beneficial effect on

small manufacturers and dealers of

motor vehicle equipment, since they

will have greater flexibility in the types

of hub caps they may manufacture and

sell. Similarly, persons who purchase

aftermarket hub caps will likely have a

greater choice. For these reasons, small

businesses, small organizations and

small governmental units which

purchase motor vehicles will not be

significantly affected by the final rule.

Accordingly, a final regulatory

flexibility analysis has not been

prepared.

3. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

This final rule has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612. The agency has determined that

the final rule does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

4. National Environmental Policy Act

The agency also has analyzed this

final rule for the purpose of the National

Environmental Policy Act, and

determined that it will not have any
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 20175

significant impact on the quality of the

human environment.

5. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice

Reform)

This final rule does not have any

retroactive 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.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles, Rubber and rubber products,

tires.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49

CFR part 571 is amended as set forth

below:

PART 571—[AMENDED]

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.

§ 571.211 [Removed]

2. Section 571.211 is removed and

reserved.

Issued on: April 30, 1996.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–11114 Filed 5–03–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 620

[Docket No. 960126016–6121–04; I.D.

042996F]

General Provisions for Domestic

Fisheries; Extension of Emergency

Fishing Closure in Block Island Sound

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Emergency interim rule;

extension.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

the State of Rhode Island, NMFS is

extending the emergency interim rule

that closed a portion of Federal waters

off the coast of the State of Rhode

Island, in Block Island Sound

subsequent to an oil spill. Fishing for

and possession of lobsters in a small

area east and north of Block Island will

remain prohibited.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 1996, through

July 23, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel Morris, (508) 281–9388.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

January 19, 1996, an oil barge grounded

and spilled more than 800,000 gallons

(3.0 million liters) of heating oil into the

waters of Block Island Sound, RI. On

January 26, 1996, NMFS, at the request

of and in conjunction with the State of

Rhode Island, prohibited the harvest of

seafood from an area of approximately

250 square miles (647 square km) in

Block Island Sound. The original area of

closure was announced and defined in

an emergency interim rule published in

the Federal Register on February 1,

1996 (61 FR 3602).

The Federal closure has been twice

amended, effective on March 13, 1996

(61 FR 11164, March 19, 1996), and

April 9, 1996 (61 FR 16401, April 15,

1996). The latter citation describes the

current closure.

Following the oil spill, State officials,

in consultation with Federal agencies

and the responsible party, developed a

protocol for reopening fisheries in the

affected area. The protocol sets

sampling, inspection, and analysis

standards, which, if met, would ensure

that seafood is wholesome and would

provide a basis for reopening fisheries.

In the most recent round of inspection,

evidence of oil adulteration was found

in lobster samples taken from the closed

Federal waters. Therefore, the closure to

fishing for and possessing lobsters in a

small area east and north of Block Island

is extended by 90 days or until the

testing protocol is satisfied.

The New England Fishery

Management Council (Council) has

concurred in the extension of this

emergency closure, so long as the

extension complements the State’s

regulations and is implemented at the

State’s request.

Classification

Extension of the emergency interim

rule is intended to prevent oiladulterated lobsters from reaching

consumers. Also, the extension does not

change existing regulations. On these

grounds, NMFS finds good cause to

extend the emergency interim rule in

accordance with section 305(c)(3)(B) of

the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (Magnuson Act). It

would be contrary to public interest to

provide notice and opportunity for

comment or to delay for 30 days the

effective date of this action under

authority at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and

(d)(3).

The Assistant Administrator for

Fisheries, NOAA (AA), has determined

that this rule is necessary to respond to

an emergency situation and is consistent

with the Magnuson Act and other

applicable law.

This emergency rule extension has

been determined to be not significant for

the purposes of E.O. 12866.

This emergency rule extension is

exempt from the procedures of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act because this

rule is not required to be issued with

prior notice and opportunity for public

comment.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: April 30, 1996.

Gary Matlock,

Program Management Officer, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 96–11163 Filed 5–1–96; 10:02 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

50 CFR Part 661

[Docket No. 960429120–6120–01; I.D.

042496C]

RIN 0648–AI35

Ocean Salmon Fisheries Off the

Coasts of Washington, Oregon, and

California; 1996 Management

Measures and Technical Amendment

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Annual management measures

for the ocean salmon fishery and

technical amendment; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS establishes fishery

management measures for the ocean

salmon fisheries off Washington,

Oregon, and California for 1996 and for

those salmon seasons opening earlier

than May 1, 1997. Specific fishery

management measures vary by fishery

and area. The measures establish fishing

areas, seasons, quotas, legal gear,

recreational fishing days and catch

limits, possession and landing

restrictions, and minimum lengths for

salmon taken in the exclusive economic