[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 117 (Monday, June 19, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31947-31949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-14902]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 95-48; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AF71
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs,
and Hub Caps
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA proposes to rescind Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps. This proposed
action is part of NHTSA's efforts to implement the President's
Regulatory Reinvention Initiative to remove unnecessary regulations.
The agency has tentatively concluded that Standard No. 211 is
unnecessarily design-restrictive. Moreover, to the extent that there
are safety concerns in this area, the agency believes they are more
appropriately addressed by State laws concerning vehicle use than by a
Federal motor vehicle safety standard.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 3, 1995.
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, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. It
is requested, but not required, that 10 copies of the comments be
provided. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 9:30 a.m. to 4
p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Margaret Gill, Office of Vehicle
Safety Standards, Office of Rulemaking, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Ms. Gill's telephone number is (202) 366-
6651. The FAX number is (202) 366-4329.
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 has undertaken 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regulations that could be rescinded as unnecessary.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). After a background
review, NHTSA explains why it believes Standard No. 211 is unnecessary,
and thus proposes to rescind the Standard.
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 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 on hub caps 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 rulemaking which culminated in the January 1993 amendment was
initiated in response to a petition submitted by several hub cap
manufacturers. After the amendment was published, however, NHTSA
received information 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.
John Russell Deane III, an attorney representing the petitioners,
wrote to express concern about certain language in the preamble to the
January 1993 final rule. NHTSA had stated:
The agency's intent [in the proposed regulatory text] was to
prohibit winged hub caps only if, when the hub cap is installed on
any wheel rim/axle combination on which the hub cap fits, the
projections extend [[Page 31948]] beyond the plane described in S4.
NHTSA chose the language ``physically compatible'' instead of
``designed to fit'' to emphasize that manufacturers must take into
consideration not only the specific wheel rim/axle combination(s) on
which the hub cap was envisioned or intended to be used, but also
any other combinations that the hub cap can fit.
Mr. Deane stated that this preamble language suggests manufacturers
may manufacture and distribute hub caps incorporating winged
projections only if the manufacturer is sure the product does not fit
``any other combinations'' which would result in the projections
extending beyond the plane of the wheel. He noted, however, that
decorative knock-off hub caps have a standardized design which consists
of a two-inch long hub adapter to which a cap is installed. This design
could be installed on any wheels, both deep wheels, on which the winged
projections would not extend beyond the plane of the wheel, and
shallower wheels on which the projections would extend beyond such
plane. Mr. Deane therefore concluded that complying with the preamble's
language would be virtually impossible for nearly all manufacturers of
these products, and that the practical effect is to continue to prevent
the manufacture and distribution of knock-off hub caps.
Mr. Deane believed that the language of the amendment itself did
not create this result and requested a letter of clarification. On
review, however, NHTSA concluded that the result at issue is a direct
consequence of the regulatory language. That text reads as follows:
Requirements. As installed on any physically compatible
combination of axle and wheel rim, wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub
caps for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles
shall not incorporate winged projections that extend beyond the
plane that is tangent to the outboard edge of the wheel rim at all
points around its circumference. * * * (Emphasis added.)
The usage of the term ``any'' is explained in 49 CFR 571.4 as
follows:
The word ``any,'' used in connection with a range of values or
set of items in the requirements, conditions, and procedures of the
standards or regulations in this chapter, means generally the
totality of the items or values, any one of which may be selected by
the Administration for testing, except where clearly specified
otherwise.
Therefore, the regulatory language requires that each hub cap with
winged projections, as used in each and every physically compatible
combination of axle and wheel rim, may not be located such that the
winged projections extend beyond the plane of the wheel.
NHTSA's Review of Standard No. 211 and Proposal to Rescind
In reviewing Standard No. 211 under the President's directive,
NHTSA was thus faced with a regulation that has the practical effect of
preventing the manufacture of all hubcaps with winged projections,
notwithstanding the fact that the agency has concluded that such
hubcaps only pose a safety concern if the winged projections extend
beyond the plane of the wheel. NHTSA strongly believes that its safety
standards should not be unnecessarily design-restrictive and therefore
considered whether the current standard, or any safety standard, is the
best means of addressing the safety concern of winged projections that
extend beyond the plane of the wheel.
NHTSA has tentatively concluded that this safety concern primarily
relates to how hubcaps with winged projections are used, 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 is therefore proposing to rescind Standard
No. 211 for reasons discussed below.
First, NHTSA believes that, because of product liability
considerations, it is in the interest of vehicle manufacturers not to
place unsafe hubcaps, such as those with winged projections extending
beyond the plane of the wheel, on their vehicles. Vehicle manufacturers
can ensure that winged hub caps are not used in unsafe hub cap/wheel
combinations since they can control which combinations are authorized.
The relevant safety concern therefore relates to the availability of
such hubcaps in the aftermarket.
As discussed above, the regulatory dilemma facing NHTSA is that
hubcaps with winged projections that are safe for one vehicle, since
the projections do not extend beyond the plane of the wheel, might be
unsafe on other vehicles with more shallow wheels. While the agency
recognizes that a total ban on hubcaps with winged projections would
ensure safety in this area, it would also unnecessarily restrict
vehicle and hubcap design.
The agency believes that the solution to this dilemma is to leave
the regulation of hubcaps with winged projections to the States. The
relevant safety problem is not how such hubcaps are manufactured but
instead how they are used; i.e., whether they are placed on vehicles in
such a manner that the winged projections 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. They can do this by simply
prohibiting the installation of a hub cap with winged projections so
that the projections extend beyond the plane of the wheel.
NHTSA believes that rescission of Standard No. 211 would not
compromise safety. The potential safety problem addressed by the
standard has always been a small one. Moreover, the agency believes
that, should there be any significant trend toward vehicle owners
installing hubcaps with winged projections in a manner that causes
injuries to pedestrians, the States could address that problem through
their motor vehicle use regulations.
Proposed Effective Date
Because the proposed rescission of Standard No. 211 would relieve
restrictions without compromising safety, the agency tentatively has
determined that there is good cause shown 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 30 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 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 proposed rule would not impose any costs or yield
any significant savings. It would instead relieve a restriction and
thereby provide vehicle and equipment manufacturers with greater
flexibility in the design and installation of wheel nuts, wheel discs,
and hub caps. Moreover, consumers would likely have a greater choice of
hub cap styles. For these reasons, the impacts would be so minimal that
they would not warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this notice under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on [[Page 31949]] a
substantial number of small entities. As explained above, the rule
would not impose any new requirements but would instead relieve a
restriction for hubcaps with winged projections. The proposed rule, if
made final, would likely have a small beneficial effect on small
manufacturers and dealers of motor vehicle equipment, since they would
have greater flexibility in the types of hub caps they may manufacture
and sell. Similarly, persons who purchase aftermarket hubcaps would
likely have greater choice. For these reasons, small businesses, small
organizations and small governmental units which purchase motor
vehicles would not be significantly affected by the proposed rule.
Accordingly, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has not been
prepared.
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 also has analyzed this proposed rule for the purpose of
the National Environmental Policy Act, and determined that it would not
have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
5. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
The proposed rule would 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.
Procedures for Filing Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.
It is requested but not required 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
late 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 self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, tires.
In consideration of the following, 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.
Sec. 571.211 [Removed]
2. Section 571.211 would be removed.
Issued on: June 14, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-14902 Filed 6-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
