[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regulations that could be rescinded as unnecessary.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