Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 112 / Monday, June 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules 29337

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 96–56, Notice 01]

RIN 2127–AF77

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Warning Devices

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: In this document, NHTSA

proposes to rescind the Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard that regulates

triangular warning devices intended to

be placed on the roadway behind

disabled buses and trucks that have a

gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)

greater than 10,000 lbs. The Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA)

requires commercial carriers to carry

and use one of three types of warning

devices: triangular devices meeting

Standard No. 125, fusees or flares.

NHTSA is proposing to rescind the

Standard because FHWA can readily

specify the carrying and using of

triangular warning devices meeting

requirements other than those in

Standard No. 125. This proposal is part

of the agency’s efforts to implement the

President’s Regulatory Reform Initiative

to remove unnecessary regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 25, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the

docket and notice numbers cited at the

beginning of this notice and be

submitted to: Docket Section, Room

5109, National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA), 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. It is

requested that 10 copies of the

comments be submitted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical issues: Mr. Richard Van

Iderstine, Office of Vehicle Safety

Standards, NPS–21, telephone (202)

366–5280, FAX (202) 366–4329.

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 NHTSA, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590. Comments should not be 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

regulations that it could propose to

rescind as unnecessary or to amend to

improve their comprehensibility,

application, or appropriateness. Among

the regulations identified for potential

rescission is Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 125, Warning

devices (49 CFR § 571.125).

Background of Standard No. 125

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard (FMVSS) No. 125, Warning

devices, specifies requirements for

warning devices that do not have selfcontained energy sources (unpowered

warning devices) and that are designed

to be carried in buses and trucks that

have a gross vehicle weight rating

(GVWR) greater than 10,000 lbs. The

unpowered warning devices are

intended to be placed on the roadway

behind a disabled vehicle to warn

approaching traffic of its presence. The

Standard does not apply to unpowered

warning devices designed to be

permanently affixed to the vehicle. The

purpose of the Standard is to reduce

deaths and injuries due to rear-end

collisions between moving traffic and

stopped vehicles. The standard requires that the

unpowered warning devices be

triangular, covered with orange

fluorescent and red reflex reflective

material, and open in the center. These

characteristics are intended to assure

that the warning device has a

standardized shape for quick message

recognition and can be readily observed

during both daytime and nighttime, and

does not blow over when deployed. NHTSA has never required that any

new vehicle be equipped with the

Standard No. 125 warning device or any

other warning device. However, as

explained below, FHWA, which has

authority to regulate interstate

commercial vehicles-in-use, mandates

that operators of those vehicles carry

and use unpowered warning devices

meeting Standard No. 125, fusees or

flares.

Previous Changes to Standard No. 125

Before 1994, Standard No. 125

applied to unpowered warning devices

that are designed to be carried in any

type of motor vehicle. On May 10, 1993

(58 FR 27314), NHTSA issued a notice

of proposed rulemaking to amend

Standard No. 125 so that the Standard

applies only to warning devices that are

designed to be carried in buses and

trucks that have a gross vehicle weight

rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 lbs.

NHTSA proposed to limit the scope of

Standard No. 125 in order to provide

manufacturers of unpowered warning

devices with greater design freedom and

to relieve an unnecessary regulatory

burden on industry. At the same time,

the agency proposed to retain the

requirements for warning devices for

buses and trucks with a GVWR greater

than 10,000 lbs., primarily to support

FHWA’s regulation of commercial motor

vehicles under the Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) (49

CFR parts 350–399). Section 393.95 of

the FMCSR requires either that three

Standard No. 125 warning devices or

specified numbers of fusees or flares be

carried on all trucks and buses used in

interstate commerce. In a final rule

published on September 29, 1994 (59 FR

49586), NHTSA limited the

applicability of Standard No. 125 as

proposed.

Proposed Rescission of Standard No.

125

In the September 1994 final rule

limiting Standard No. 125 to unpowered

warning devices designed to be carried

in buses and trucks with a GVWR

greater than 10,000 lbs., NHTSA stated

that it was retaining Standard No. 125

in its narrowed form largely to ensure

the continued availability of

standardized unpowered warning

devices which FHWA could specify as

a means of complying with its warning

device requirements for commercial

vehicle operators. After reviewing

Standard No. 125 in light of the

President’s Regulatory Review Initiative,

NHTSA tentatively has determined that

the retention of Standard No. 125 is not

necessary to ensure the continued

availability of unpowered warning

devices.

If Standard No. 125 were rescinded,

FHWA would have two options. First, it

could adopt the current manufacturing

standards for the warning devices as an

appendix to the Federal Motor Carrier

Safety Regulations. Section 393.95

would be revised to reference the newly

created appendix as opposed to Section

571.125.

Second, it could work with an

industry voluntary standards setting

organization such as the Society of

Automotive Engineers (SAE) to develop

an industry standard on unpowered

warning devices containing

requirements similar to those in

Standard No. 125. Once those

requirements were developed, FHWA

could incorporate them by reference in

Section 393.95.
29338 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 112 / Monday, June 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules

NHTSA notes that it has a pending

petition from the Transportation Safety

Equipment Institute (TSEI) requesting

that NHTSA’s testing protocol for

Standard No. 125, Laboratory Test

Procedure for Warning Devices (TP–

125–00, April 1, 1977) be amended to

reflect the TSEI’s recommended

changes. If NHTSA were to rescind

Standard No. 125, equipment

manufacturers could work with an

industry standard setting organization to

specify the testing protocol that it deems

appropriate.

Proposed Effective Date

Because the proposed removal of

Standard No. 125 would relieve

regulatory restrictions without

compromising safety, the agency has

tentatively determined that there is good

cause for concluding that an effective

date earlier than 180 days after issuance

is in the public interest. Accordingly,

the agency proposes that, if adopted, the

effective date for the final rule be 45

days after its publication in the Federal

Register.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

1. Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This proposed rule was not reviewed

under E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning

and Review. NHTSA has analyzed the

impact of this rulemaking action under

the Department of Transportation’s

regulatory policies and procedures and

determined that it is not ‘‘significant.’’

If made final, this rulemaking action

would remove an unnecessary

regulation from the Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standards.

This action is not expected to have

any economic impact on manufacturers

of unpowered warning devices designed

to be carried in motor vehicles with a

GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less since the

agency does not currently regulate the

manufacture of those devices.

Based on its assumption that there

would continue to be performance

requirements similar to those currently

in Standard No. 125, NHTSA tentatively

concludes that the rescission of the

Standard would, at most, have only

slight, nonquantifiable economic effects

on manufacturers of unpowered

warning devices designed to be carried

in buses and trucks over 10,000 lbs.

GVWR.

For these reasons, the agency has

concluded that the economic effects of

this proposal would be so minimal that

a full regulatory evaluation is not

required.

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The agency has also considered the

effects of this rulemaking under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.) I certify that this proposal would

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. If FHWA continued to specify

an unpowered warning device for buses

and trucks that have a GVWR greater

than 10,000 lbs. that meets requirements

similar or identical to those in Standard

No. 125, and to require operators of

such vehicles to carry the devices or

other types of warning devices, the cost

of the unpowered warning devices

should not change. Further,

manufacturers of those unpowered

warning devices would continue to have

essentially the same market that they

currently have. Accordingly, the agency

has not prepared an initial regulatory

flexibility analysis.

3. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

This proposed rule has been analyzed

in accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612. The agency has determined that

the proposed rule does not have

sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment.

4. National Environmental Policy Act

The agency has also analyzed this

proposed rule for the purpose of the

National Environmental Policy Act.

NHTSA has determined that the

proposed rule would not significantly

affect the human environment.

5. Paperwork Reduction Act

Standard No. 125 specifies that the

warning devices be marked with certain

information, that is considered to be an

information collection requirement, as

that term is defined by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) in 5

CFR Part 1320. This collection of

information has been assigned OMB

Control No. 2127–0506, (Warning

Devices (Labeling)) and has been

approved for use through March 31,

1996. Whether NHTSA decides to ask

for a reinstatement of this collection of

information will depend on the final

action for this rulemaking.

6. Executive Order 12866 (Civil Justice

Reform)

This proposed rule would not have

any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.

section 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. section

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.

Procedures for Filing Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the proposal. It is

requested that 10 copies be submitted.

All comments must not exceed 15

pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).

Necessary attachments may be

appended to these submissions without

regard to the 15-page limit. This

limitation is intended to encourage

commenters to detail their primary

arguments in a concise fashion.

If a commenter wishes to submit

certain information under a claim of

confidentiality, three copies of the

complete submission, including

purportedly confidential business

information, should be submitted to the

Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street

address given above, and seven copies

from which the purportedly confidential

information has been deleted should be

submitted to the Docket Section. A

request for confidentiality should be

accompanied by a cover letter setting

forth the information specified in the

agency’s confidential business

information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above for the

proposal will be considered, and will be

available for examination in the docket

at the above address both before and

after that date. To the extent possible,

comments filed after the closing date

will also be considered. Comments

received too for consideration in regard

to the final rule will be considered as

suggestions for further rulemaking

action. Comments on the proposal will

be available for inspection in the docket.

The NHTSA will continue to file

relevant information as it becomes

available in the docket after the closing

date, and it is recommended that

interested persons continue to examine

the docket for new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified

upon receipt of their comments in the

rules docket should enclose a selfaddressed, stamped postcard in the

envelope with their comments. Upon

receiving the comments, the docket

supervisor will return the postcard by

mail.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 112 / Monday, June 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules 29339

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Incorporation by reference,

Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles,

Rubber and rubber products, Tires.

In consideration of the foregoing,

NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part

571 as follows:

PART 571—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 571

would continue to read as follows:

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

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

§ 571.125 [Removed and reserved]

2. § 571.125 would be removed, and

reserved.

Issued on: May 31, 1996.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 96–14256 Filed 6–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 641

[I.D. 052096A]

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management

Council; Public Hearings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Public hearings; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Council (Council) will

convene five public hearings on Draft

Amendment 14 to the Fishery

Management Plan for Reef Fish

Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP)

and a draft environmental assessment

(EA).

DATES: Written comments will be

accepted until July 1, 1996. The public

hearings will be held from June 17 to

June 21, 1996. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for specific dates and

times.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to and copies of the draft

amendment are available from Mr.

Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director,

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management

Council, 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard,

Tampa, FL 33609.

The hearings will be held in Florida.

See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for

locations of the hearings and public

accommodations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wayne E. Swingle, 813 228–2815.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Council will be holding public hearings

on Draft Amendment 14 to the FMP and

its draft EA. Amendment 14 includes

management alternatives for regulating

the fish trap fishery. Alternatives under

consideration include: (1) Creation of a

commercial vessel license system

limiting participants in the trap fishery

along with provisions for the transfer of

vessel permits, (2) extending the current

moratorium on the issuance of fish trap

endorsements for 4 more years, (3)

limiting permits to current trap fishery

participants and phasing out the trap

fishery after 10 years, and (4) evaluating

the effectiveness of enforcement of trap

rules over 2 years before taking further

action. The current moratorium on new

fish trap endorsements expires in

February 1997. Amendment 14 also

includes several alternatives related to

area prohibitions on the use of fish traps

including prohibiting: (1) The use of

fish traps south of 24°54’ N. lat. (i.e., off

Dry Tortugas, FL);

(2) use of traps in the Gulf of Mexico

west of Cape San Blas, FL

(Appalachicola area); (3) use of traps on

Riley’s Hump (a 20 square mile (51 km)

spawning aggregation site, south of Dry

Tortugas); and (4) all fishing on Riley’s

Hump year round, making it a marine

sanctuary. Amendment 14 would

modify the provisions for tending traps

and establish compliance conditions for

the trap permit.

Additional management measures in

Amendment 14 include: (1) Modifying

the FMP framework procedure for

specifying total allowable catch by

allowing the Regional Director, in

addition to being able to open and close

a commercial fishery, to reopen a closed

commercial fishery if needed to ensure

that the fishery quota is harvested; (2)

modifying the transfer provisions for

reef fish vessel permits (under the reef

fish commercial vessel permit

moratorium) to allow transfers of

permits to an income qualifying

operator; also allowing a vessel owner 1

year to meet the income qualifications if

the permit has been issued based on

income qualifications of the operator;

and (3) prohibiting the harvest of

Nassau grouper in the Gulf of Mexico

because of resource declines.

The hearings are scheduled from 7:00

p.m. to 10:00 p.m. as follows:

1. Monday, June 17, 1996—Holiday

Inn Beachside, 3841 North Roosevelt

Boulevard, Key West, FL 33040

2. Tuesday, June 18, 1996—Naples

Depot Civic-Cultural Center, 1051 Fifth

Avenue South, Naples, FL 33940

3. Wednesday, June 19, 1996—

Plantation Inn and Golf Resort, West

Fort Island Trail (CR 44W), Crystal

River, FL 34423

4. Thursday, June 20, 1996—

Steinhatchee Elementary School, First

Avenue South, Steinhatchee, FL 32359

5. Friday, June 21, 1996—

Crawfordville Board of County

Commissioners Conference Room, Old

Aaron Road (behind the Courthouse),

Crawfordville, FL 32326

Special Accommodations

These hearings are physically

accessible to people with disabilities.

Requests for sign language

interpretation or other auxiliary aids

should be directed to Anne Alford at the

Council (see ADDRESSES) by June 12,

1996.

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

Dated: June 3, 1996.

Richard W. Surdi,

Acting Director, Office of Fisheries

Conservation and Management, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 96–14494 Filed 6–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F