[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 88 (Monday, May 6, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20172-20175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11114]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
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 Sec. 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,
[[Page 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
design-restrictive 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 design-
restrictive. 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.
[[Page 20174]]
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
[[Page 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.
Sec. 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
