Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 27023

unless, by July 1, 1996 adverse or

critical comments are received.

If EPA receives such comments, this

action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

action serving as a proposed rule. EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this action. Any parties

interested in commenting on this action

should do so at this time. If no such

comments are received, the public is

advised that this action will be effective

July 29, 1996.

Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by July 29, 1996.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See Section

307(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Particulate matter.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

Implementation Plan for the State of Idaho

was approved by the Director of the Office of

Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: March 20, 1996.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart N—Idaho

2. Section 52.670 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(31) to read as

follows:

§ 52.670 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(31) On November 14, 1991, and on

December 30, 1994, the Idaho

Department of Health and Welfare

(IDHW) submitted revisions to the Idaho

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the

Northern Ada County/Boise Particulate

(PM10) Air Quality Improvement Plan.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) November 14, 1991, letter from

the IDHW Administrator to the EPA

Region 10 Regional Administrator

submitting a revision to the Idaho SIP

for the Northern Ada County/Boise

Particulate Air Quality Improvement

Plan; The Northern Ada County Boise

Particulate (PM10) Air Quality

Improvement Plan adopted on

November 14, 1991.

(B) December 30, 1994, letter from the

IDHW Administrator to the EPA Region

10 Regional Administrator including a

revision to the Idaho SIP for the

Northern Ada County/Boise PM10 Air

Quality Improvement Plan; Appendix

C–1, Supplemental Control Strategy

Documentation, Northern Ada County/

Boise PM10 Air Quality Improvement

Plan, adopted December 30, 1994, with

the following attachments: Garden City

Ordinances #514 (May 14, 1987), #533

(January 10, 1989) and #624 (September

13, 1994); Meridian Ordinance #667

(August 16, 1994); Eagle Ordinance #245

(April 26, 1994); Ada County Ordinance

#254 (November 3, 1992); and Table

Ordinance-1 (December 30, 1994).

[FR Doc. 96–12888 Filed 5–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 95–84; Notice 02]

RIN 2127–AF70

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Head Restraints

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule clarifies the

test procedures in Standard No. 202,

‘‘Head Restraints,’’ by replacing the

phrase ‘‘rearmost portion of the head

form’’ with a reference to the portion of

the head form in contact with the head

restraint. The proposal on which this

rule is based contained two other

proposed amendments to the standard;

this document terminates rulemaking on

those proposals.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments

made in this rule are effective July 15,

1996.

PETITION DATES: Any petitions for

reconsideration must be received by

NHTSA no later than July 15, 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,

Frontal Crash Protection Division,

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards,

NPS–12, telephone (202) 366–4916, fax

(202) 366–4329, electronic mail

‘‘charper@nhtsa.dot.gov’’.

For legal issues: Steve Wood, Office of

the Chief Counsel, NCC–20, telephone

(202) 366–2992, facsimile (202) 366–

3820, electronic mail

‘‘swood@nhtsa.dot.gov’’.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to the March 4, 1994 directive,

‘‘Regulatory Reinvention Initiative,’’

from the President to the heads of

departments and agencies, NHTSA has

undertaken a review of all its

regulations and directives. During the

course of this review, the agency

identified several requirements and

regulations that are potential candidates

for amendment or rescission. Some of

these provisions were found in Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202,

‘‘Head Restraints.’’

On October 24, 1995, NHTSA

published a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM), proposing to delete

one of two alternative performance

requirements for head restraints. The

NPRM also proposed to clarify the test

procedures by replacing the phrase

‘‘rearmost portion of the head form’’

with a reference to the portion of the

head form in contact with the head

restraint. Last, the NPRM proposed to

specify that head restraints on benchtype seats are loaded simultaneously

during compliance testing.

The agency received eight comments

in response to this NPRM. As explained

below, after reviewing these comments

the agency has decided to amend

Standard No. 202 to replace the phrase

‘‘rearmost portion of the head form’’

with a reference to the portion of the

head form in contact with the head

restraint. However, the agency is

terminating rulemaking on the other

proposed amendments.
27024 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Dynamic Test Requirement

Standard No. 202 allows

manufacturers a choice of two

performance requirements which

provide equivalent levels of safety. One

alternative, found in S4.3(b) and S5.2,

requires the head restraint to have

minimum dimensions and to not

displace more than 4 inches when a

3,300 inch pound moment is applied to

the head restraint. The other alternative,

found in S4.3(a) and S5.1, limits

rearward angular displacement of the

dummy head to less than 45 degrees

during a forward acceleration of at least

8g applied to the seat supporting

structure. The second alternative

involves a testing procedure that is more

cumbersome than the first alternative

and subsequently has rarely, if ever,

been used. Because this alternative has

rarely been used, NHTSA proposed to

remove this alternative to simplify the

regulatory language of the standard.

AAMA and Volkswagen supported

this proposal; however, other

commenters did not agree. Some

commenters stated that Standard No.

202 should be amended by

strengthening the dynamic test rather

than removing it. Other commenters

stated that manufacturers should be

allowed this alternate test, and that the

dynamic test more closely depicted the

real world.

Atwood Mobile Products and the

Recreation Vehicle Industry Association

stated that removal of the dynamic test

could stifle future technological

innovation in the area of deployable

crash protections systems for head

restraints. The Insurance Institute for

Highway Safety agreed, stating that

development of such systems would be

impeded by a standard that only

specifies geometric requirements.

Based on these comments, NHTSA

has decided to terminate rulemaking on

the proposal to rescind the dynamic test

alternative in Standard No. 202. NHTSA

is concerned that removal of this

alternative could stifle technological

improvements in this area. In addition,

it was not the intention of the proposal

to restrict the choice of options available

to manufacturers.

‘‘Rearmost Portion of the Head Form’’

Paragraph S4.3(b)(3) of Standard No.

202 states that a head restraint installed

under option (b) of the standard must

limit the rearward displacement of ‘‘the

rearmost portion’’ of the head form used

to apply a test load to the restraint.

During agency compliance testing,

questions have occasionally arisen

regarding what is meant by the phrase

‘‘rearmost portion of the head form’’ in

S4.3(b)(3). Therefore, the agency

proposed to clarify the standard by

replacing the reference to the phrase

‘‘rearmost portion of the head form’’

with a reference to the portion of the

head form in contact with the head

restraint.

Three commenters addressed this

issue. Two supported the proposal and

only one commenter (Liability Research

Group (LRG)) objected to it. LRG

believed that the proposed change

would allow head form contact below

the level of the mid-line of the head

form and lead to poor head restraint

designs. LRG provided no explanation

of how the wording change would be

detrimental to safety.

The wording change merely clarifies

the location on the head form which is

subject to the requirement. Therefore,

the change will have no effect on safety

and will not allow designs not already

allowed by the standard. Therefore,

NHTSA is adopting the proposed

amendment.

Test Consolidation for Bench Seats

To reduce compliance testing costs,

the agency proposed to specify that

head restraints on bench-type seats

would be loaded simultaneously during

testing. On front bench seats, this

proposal would have required the

driver’s and right passenger’s head

restraints to be tested in a single test

instead of in two separate tests. Under

the current test procedure, a load that

will produce a 3,300 inch pound

moment is applied to the head restraint.

That load is then increased until either

a 200 pound load is applied or the seat

back fails. NHTSA tentatively

concluded that manufacturers could

experience minor cost savings as a

result of running one test of both head

restraints simultaneously, rather than

two separate tests.

In the NPRM, the agency recognized

that the proposal might theoretically

allow manufacturers to install less

strong head restraints. If simultaneous

loads were to cause the seat back to fail

before the 200 pound load were applied,

the test would be considered

incomplete, rather than a failure. The

agency would not have been able to

fully evaluate compliance of the vehicle

with Standard No. 202. However,

NHTSA did not believe that testing head

restraints simultaneously would result

in a seat back failure. This is because

NHTSA has never had a seat back fail

during its compliance testing for

Standard No. 202, and because the total

load would be less than seats are

required to withstand under Standard

No. 207, Seating Systems.

Therefore, the agency did not expect

this proposal to result in a lessening of

the safety requirements of the standard.

No commenter supported this

proposal. Commenters expressed

concern that the proposal could allow

manufacturers to install weaker seats

rather than strong head restraints. The

commenters stated that there was no

data to support the agency’s belief that

the proposal would not result in a

reduction in safety.

Commenters also stated that the

savings to manufacturers would not

result. Commenters stated that the test

setup would not be noticeably different

for a test of two head restraints in

comparison to two single tests.

Commenters also stated that

manufacturers would incur initial costs

to upgrade laboratory equipment to

conduct simultaneous tests.

Based on these comments, NHTSA is

terminating rulemaking on this

proposal. The intent of the proposal was

to (a) reduce compliance test costs (b)

without a reduction in safety.

Commenters provided information that

the first of these goals was not likely to

be met. In addition, commenters raised

doubts that the second goal would be

met also.

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. This rule merely clarifies a

phrase in the test procedure, and does

not change the regulatory requirements

of the standard. Therefore, there should

be no economic impact from this rule.

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, the agency expects no

economic impact from this rule.

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 27025

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.

2. Section 571.202 is amended by

revising section S4.3(b)(3) to read as

follows:

§ 571.202 Standard No. 202; Head

restraints.

* * * * *

S4.3

* * * * *

(b)

* * * * *

(3) When tested in accordance with

S5.2, any portion of the head form in

contact with the head restraint shall not

be displaced to more than 4 inches

perpendicularly rearward of the

displaced extended torso reference line

during the application of the load

specified in S5.2(c); and

* * * * *

Issued on May 22, 1996.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–13527 Filed 5–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 301

[Docket No. 960111003–6068–03; I.D.

052196B]

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; 1996 Halibut

Landing Report No. 1

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Inseason action.

SUMMARY: The Assistant Administrator

for Fisheries, NOAA, on behalf of the

International Pacific Halibut

Commission (IPHC), publishes these

inseason actions pursuant to IPHC

regulations approved by the U.S.

Government to govern the Pacific

halibut fishery. This action is intended

to enhance the conservation of the

Pacific halibut stock.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Non-treaty commercial

fishing period for Area 2A: 8 a.m.

through 6 p.m., Pacific local time, July

10, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven Pennoyer, 907–586–7221;

William W. Stelle, Jr., 206–526–6140; or

Donald McCaughran, 206–634–1838.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The IPHC,

under the Convention between the

United States of America and Canada

for the Preservation of the Halibut

Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean

and Bering Sea (signed at Ottawa,

Ontario, on March 2, 1953), as amended

by a Protocol Amending the Convention

(signed at Washington, DC, on March

29, 1979), has issued this inseason

action pursuant to IPHC regulations

governing the Pacific halibut fishery.

The regulations have been approved by

NMFS (60 FR 14651, March 20, 1995,

and amended at 61 FR 11337, March 20,

1996). On behalf of the IPHC, this

inseason action is published in the

Federal Register to provide additional

notice of its effectiveness, and to inform

persons subject to the inseason action of

the restrictions and requirements

established therein.

Inseason Action

1996 Halibut Landing Report No. 1

Non-treaty Commercial Fishing Period

Limits in Area 2A

The Commission has determined that

fishing period limits will be required

during the 10-hour, July 10 non-treaty

directed commercial fishing period in

Area 2A to avoid exceeding the 91,052

pound (41.90 metric tons (mt)) catch

limit. The July 10 fishing period will

begin at 8:00 a.m. and end at 6:00 p.m.

The fishery is restricted to waters that

are south of Point Chehalis, Washington

(46°53′18′′ N. latitude) under

regulations promulgated by National

Marine Fisheries Service. Fishing period

limits as indicated in the following table

will be in effect for this opening.

Vessel class Fishing period limit (pounds)

Length Letter Dressed, head-on Dressed, head-off*

0–25 A 285 250

26–30 B 360 315

31–35 C 575 505

36–40 D 1,580 1,390

41–45 E 1,700 1,495

46–50 F 2,035 1,790

51–55 G 2,265 1,995

56+ H 3,410 3,000

* Weights are after 2 percent has been deducted for ice and slime if fish are not washed prior to weighing.