20170 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

(2) Illegal activity or fraud;

(3) Non-payment or late payment to a

foreign administration or agent;

(4) Failure to follow ITR requirements

and procedures;

(5) Failure to take into account ITUT Recommendations;

(6) Failure to follow FCC rules and

regulations;

(7) Bankruptcy; or

(8) Providing false or incomplete

information to the Commission or

failure to comply with or respond to

requests for information.

(b) Prior to taking any of the

enforcement actions in paragraph (a) of

this section, the Commission will give

notice of its intent to take the specified

action and the grounds therefor, and

afford a 30-day period for a response in

writing; provided that, where the public

interest so requires, the Commission

may temporarily suspend a certification

pending completion of these

procedures. Responses must be

forwarded to the Accounting Authority

Certification Officer. See Section 3.61.

§ 3.73 Waiting period after cancellation.

An accounting authority whose

certification has been cancelled must

wait a minimum of three years before

reapplying to be an accounting

authority.

§ 3.74 Ship stations affected by

suspension, cancellation or relinquishment.

(a) Whenever the accounting authority

privilege has been suspended, cancelled

or relinquished, the accounting

authority is responsible for immediately

notifying all U.S. ship licensees for

which it was performing settlements of

the circumstances and informing them

of the requirement contained in

paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) Those ship stations utilizing an

accounting authority’s AAIC for which

the subject accounting authority

certification has been suspended,

cancelled or relinquished, should make

contractual arrangements with another

properly authorized accounting

authority to settle its accounts.

(c) The Commission will notify the

ITU of all accounting authority

suspensions, cancellations and

relinquishments, and

(d) The Commission will publish a

Public Notice detailing all accounting

authority suspensions, cancellations

and relinquishments.

§ 3.75 Licensee’s failure to make timely

payment.

Failure to remit proper and timely

payment to the Commission or to an

accounting authority may result in one

or more of the following actions against

the licensee:

(a) Forfeiture or other authorized

sanction.

(b) The refusal by foreign countries to

accept or refer public correspondence

communications to or from the vessel or

vessels owned, operated or licensed by

the person or entity failing to make

payment. This action may be taken at

the request of the Commission or

independently by the foreign country or

coast station involved.

(c) Further action to recover amounts

owed utilizing any or all legally

available debt collection procedures.

§ 3.76 Licensee’s liability for payment.

The U.S. ship station licensee bears

ultimate responsibility for final payment

of its accounts. This responsibility

cannot be superseded by the contractual

agreement between the ship station

licensee and the accounting authority.

In the event that an accounting

authority does not remit proper and

timely payments on behalf of the ship

station licensee:

(a) The ship station licensee will

make arrangements for another

accounting authority to perform future

settlements, and

(b) The ship station licensee will

settle any outstanding accounts due to

foreign entities.

(c) The Commission will, upon

request, take all possible steps, within

the limits of applicable national law, to

ensure settlement of the accounts of the

ship station licensee. As circumstances

warrant, this may include issuing

warnings to ship station licensees when

it becomes apparent that an accounting

authority is failing to settle accounts.

See also Sections 3.70 through 3.74.

[FR Doc. 96–10974 Filed 5–03–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 95–42; Notice 2]

RIN 2127–AF67

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Seat Belt Assemblies;

Child Restraint Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document rescinds the

colorfastness requirements for seat belt

assemblies. The purpose of those

requirements is to ensure that motorists

are not discouraged from using safety

belts out of a concern that the belts will

transfer their coloring to the motorists’

clothing. NHTSA concludes that

manufacturer concerns about public

acceptance are sufficient by themselves

to ensure that manufacturers will

continue to make their belts colorfast.

Therefore, retention of the requirements

is not necessary.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments

made in this rule are effective June 20,

1996.

Applicability Date: Seat belt

assemblies manufactured after June 20,

1996 are not required to meet the

colorfastness requirements.

Petition Date: Any petitions for

reconsideration must be received by

NHTSA no later than June 20, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Any petitions for

reconsideration should refer to the

docket and notice number of this notice

and be submitted to: Administrator,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

following persons at the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20590:

For non-legal issues: Clarke Harper,

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards,

NPS–12, telephone (202) 366–4916,

facsimile (202) 366–4329, electronic

mail ‘‘charper@nhtsa.dot.gov’’.

For legal issues: Mary Versailles,

Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC–20,

telephone (202) 366–2992, facsimile

(202) 366–3820, electronic mail

‘‘mversailles@nhtsa.dot.gov’’.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 all its regulations

and directives. During the course of that

review, the agency identified several

requirements and regulations as being

potential candidates for rescission. On

June 19, 1995, the agency published an

NPRM proposing the rescission of

several of those candidate requirements,

including the colorfastness

requirements in Standard No. 209, ‘‘Seat

Belt Assemblies’’ (60 FR 31946).

In the NPRM, NHTSA noted that it

had included the colorfastness

requirements in Standard No. 209 out of

concern that occupants would be less

likely to wear their seat belt if a lack of

colorfastness of the webbing damaged

their clothing. Paragraphs S4.2 (g) and

(h) of the Standard require seat belt

webbing to resist transferring color to a

wet or dry crock cloth and to resist
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 20171

staining (the colorfastness

requirements). Test procedures for

determining compliance with the

colorfastness requirements are found in

S5.1 (g) and (h) of the Standard.

NHTSA tentatively concluded in the

NPRM that market forces would be

sufficient, in the absence of the current

requirements, to induce seat belt

manufacturers to use webbing that will

not stain clothing. The agency noted

that it was not aware of any basis for

believing that rescission of the

colorfastness requirements would lessen

colorfastness or safety.

Therefore, NHTSA proposed to delete

the colorfastness requirements from

Standard No. 209. NHTSA also

proposed to delete references to these

requirements in Standard No. 213,

‘‘Child Restraint Systems.’’

The agency received 5 comments in

response to the NPRM. The commenters

were: the Industrial Fabrics Association

International (IFAI), Chrysler,

Volkswagen, the Automotive Occupant

Restraints Council (AORC), and Ford.

Three commenters (IFAI, Chrysler,

and Ford) supported the proposal,

indicating that the colorfastness would

be maintained voluntarily. Two

commenters (Volkswagen and AORC)

opposed rescission of the requirements.

Volkswagen believed that rescission

would not reduce the cost burden on

manufacturers as they would have to

ensure colorfastness regardless. AORC

opposed rescission more adamantly

because they believed that, while major

manufacturers would continue to

comply, smaller, less experienced

manufacturers might use non-colorfast

webbing. They believed that this would

result in increased consumer

dissatisfaction, increased non-use of

safety belts, and increased injuries.

Because the comments were split, the

agency contacted four additional

sources not represented by the

commenters: a safety belt manufacturer

(Indiana Mills and Manufacturing), a

child seat manufacturer (Gerry Baby

Products Company), a test laboratory

(Dayton T. Brown Testing), and a

webbing manufacturer (Narricot

Industries). The first three agreed that

colorfastness would be voluntarily

maintained. The webbing manufacturer

expressed concern that market pressures

could require it to reduce colorfastness

to remain cost competitive.

After reviewing this information, the

agency has decided to rescind the

colorfastness requirements. The

majority of the manufacturers who

commented or were contacted indicated

that they would voluntarily maintain

colorfastness, even if they had concerns

that some others might not. While

NHTSA understands the concern that

market pressures for reducing costs

might lead to a lessening of

colorfastness, the agency believes that

there is a countervailing market force

that will minimize the possibility and

extent of any such lessening of

colorfastness. If a problem with

colorfastness were to occur, the affected

consumers would complain to the

responsible manufacturer and likely

insist on having the belt replaced, rather

than forgoing use of the belt. Further,

this countervailing force is much greater

than it was when the colorfastness

requirements were originally adopted.

The proportion of the driving

population likely to notice and

complain about lack of colorfastness has

grown substantially since the 1970’s.

Belt use has increased from 18 percent

in those years to 67 percent today. In

part, this increase is a reflection of

consumers’ increased interest in safety

and understanding of the contribution

that seat belt use makes to safety. The

increase also reflects the existence now

of safety belt use laws in 49 states and

of child safety seat use laws in all 50

states. Thus, further increases in belt

use are anticipated.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

NHTSA has considered the impact of

this rulemaking action under E.O. 12866

and the Department of Transportation’s

regulatory policies and procedures. This

rulemaking document was not reviewed

under E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning

and Review.’’ This action has been

determined to be not ‘‘significant’’

under the Department of

Transportation’s regulatory policies and

procedures. NHTSA believes that there

would be no gain or loss of safety

benefits from Standards Nos. 209 and

213 as a result of rescission of the

colorfastness requirements. NHTSA also

believes there will be no cost increases

or savings for manufacturers.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has also considered the

impacts of this final rule under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby

certify that this rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. As

explained above, NHTSA does not

anticipate that this proposal will

significantly economically impact small

manufacturers, or small entities that

purchase safety belts or vehicles.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96–511),

there are no requirements for

information collection associated with

this final rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has also analyzed this final

rule under the National Environmental

Policy Act and determined that it will

not have a significant impact on the

human environment.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

NHTSA has analyzed this rule in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and

has determined that this rule will not

have significant federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

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.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49

CFR Part 571 is amended as follows:

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for Part 571

of Title 49 continues to read as follows:

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

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

§ 571.209 [Amended]

2. Section 571.209 is amended by

removing S4.2(g), S4.2(h), S5.1(g) and

S5.1(h).

3. Section 571.213 is amended by

revising S5.4.1(b) to read as follows:

§ 571.213 Standard No. 213; Child restraint

systems.

* * * * *
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,