Tireco, Inc., Ruling on Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 58550-58553 [2016-20330]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
58550
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2016 / Notices
Program (14 CFR part 120), 49 U.S.C.
31306 (Alcohol and controlled
substances testing), and the Omnibus
Transportation Employee Testing Act of
1991 (the Act). The FAA uses
information collected for determining
program compliance or non-compliance
of regulated aviation employers,
oversight planning, determining who
must provide annual MIS testing
information, and communicating with
entities subject to the program
regulations.
Respondents: Approximately 7,000
affected entities annually.
Frequency: Information is collected
on occasion.
Estimated Average Burden per
Response: 5 minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
22,902 hours.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 17,
2016.
Ronda Thompson,
FAA Information Collection Clearance
Officer, Performance, Policy, and Records
Management Branch, ASP–110.
[FR Doc. 2016–20010 Filed 8–24–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of
Information Collection: Aviation
Medical Examiner Program
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our
intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
approval to renew a previously
approved information collection. This
collection is necessary in order to
determine applicants’ qualifications for
certification as Aviation Medical
Examiners (AMEs).
DATES: Written comments should be
submitted by October 24, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA
at the following address: Ronda
Thompson, Room 441, Federal Aviation
Administration, ASP–110, 950 L’Enfant
Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Public Comments Invited: You are
asked to comment on any aspect of this
information collection, including (a)
Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for FAA’s
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Aug 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
performance; (b) the accuracy of the
estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity
of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be
minimized without reducing the quality
of the collected information. The agency
will summarize and/or include your
comments in the request for OMB’s
clearance of this information collection.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ronda Thompson by email at:
Ronda.Thompson@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Control Number: 2120–0604.
Title: Aviation Medical Examiner
Program.
Form Numbers: FAA form 8520–2.
Type of Review: Renewal of an
information collection.
Background: 14 CFR part 183
describes the requirements for
delegating to private physicians the
authority to conduct physical
examinations on persons wishing to
apply for their airmen medical
certificate. This collection of
information is for the purpose of
obtaining essential information
concerning the applicants’ professional
and personal qualifications. The FAA
uses the information to screen and
select the designees who serve as
aviation medical examiners.
Respondents: Approximately 450
applicants annually.
Frequency: Information is collected
on occasion.
Estimated Average Burden per
Response: 30 minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden: 225
hours.
Time. Another meeting will be held on
September 8, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. until
11:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
PLACE: The meetings will be open to the
public at the Residence Inn Washington,
DC Downtown, 1199 Vermont Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20005, and via
conference call. Those not attending the
meetings in person may call 1–877–
422–1931, passcode 2855443940, to
listen and participate in the meetings.
STATUS: Open to the public.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The
Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board
of Directors (the Board) will continue its
work in developing and implementing
the Unified Carrier Registration Plan
and Agreement and to that end, may
consider matters properly before the
Board.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 17,
2016.
Ronda Thompson,
FAA Information Collection Clearance
Officer, Performance, Policy, and Records
Management Branch, ASP–110.
AGENCY:
[FR Doc. 2016–20015 Filed 8–24–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier
Registration Plan Board of Directors
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of Unified Carrier
Registration Plan Board of Directors
Meeting.
AGENCY:
One meeting will be
held on September 7, 2016 from 2:00
p.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight
TIME AND DATE:
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Mr.
Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified
Carrier Registration Board of Directors at
(505) 827–4565.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Issued on: August 18, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016–20492 Filed 8–23–16; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2015–0028; Notice 2]
Tireco, Inc., Ruling on Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Ruling on petition.
Tireco, Inc. (Tireco)
determined that certain Milestar brand
medium truck tires do not comply with
paragraph S6.5(j), and in some cases
also paragraph S6.5(d), of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles
with a GVWR of More Than 4,536
Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) and
Motorcycles. Tireco filed a report dated
February 5, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. Tireco then
petitioned NHTSA under 49 CFR part
556 for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. NHTSA has
decided to deny Tireco’s petition in part
and grant it in part.
ADDRESSES: For further information on
this decision contact Abraham Diaz,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM
25AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2016 / Notices
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), telephone
(202) 366–5310, facsimile (202) 366–
5930.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556),
Tireco submitted a petition for an
exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. In a letter dated
May 7, 2015, Tireco also submitted a
supplement to its petition.
Notice of receipt of the Tireco’s
petition was published by NHTSA in
the Federal Register on June 24, 2015
(80 FR 36406) with a 30-day public
comment period. No comments were
received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the
Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: https://
www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the
online search instructions to locate
docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2015–0028.’’
II. Replacement Tires Involved:
Affected are approximately 31,316
Milestar brand medium truck tires that
were imported by Tireco and
manufactured by Shandong Wanda Boto
Tyre Co., LTD. in China between June
3, 2013 and January 25, 2015. Refer to
Tireco’s 49 CFR part 573 report in
docket NHTSA–2015–0028 for detailed
descriptions of the affected tires.
III. Noncompliance: Tireco states that
the subject tires do not comply with
paragraph S6.5(j) of FMVSS No. 119
because the affected tires are either not
marked with the tire’s load range letter,
or incorrectly marked with the letter ‘‘J’’
instead of the letter ‘‘L’’ to designate the
tire’s load range. In addition, some of
the affected tires also do not comply
with paragraph S6.5(d) of FMVSS No.
119 because, the maximum load ratings
and pressures specified on the sidewalls
for both single and dual applications are
both identified as ‘‘DUAL.’’ The first
rating should have been identified as
‘‘SINGLE.’’
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S6.5 of
FMVSS No. 119 requires in pertinent
part:
S6.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in
this paragraph, each tire shall be marked on
each sidewall with the information specified
in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section.
. . .
(d) The maximum load rating and
corresponding inflation pressure of the tire,
shown as follows:
(Mark on tires rated for single and dual
load): Max load single lkg (llb) at lkPa
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Aug 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
(lpsi) cold. Max load dual lkg (llb) at
lkPa (lpsi) cold.
(Mark on tires rated only for single load):
Max load lkg (llb) at lkPa (lpsi) cold.
. . .
(j) The letter designating the tire load
range.
V. Summary of Tireco’s Analyses:
Tireco believes that the absence of the
load range marking on some of the
subject tires causes little or no risk of
overloading of the tires by an end-user
because the tires are marked with the
correct number of plies, the correct load
index and the correct maximum load
values, which Tireco believes provide
equivalent information. Tireco also
states that it has found one previous
inconsequential noncompliance petition
(see 79 FR 78562; December 30, 2014)
in which the agency addressed the issue
of a missing load range marking and
believes that the agency should apply
the same rationale in the case of its
petition.
In the case of the MILESTAR BS628
315/80R22.5 L/20 tires marked with the
incorrect load range letter ‘‘J,’’ Tireco
believes there is no safety consequence
since the tires actually were designed
and manufactured to be stronger than
load range ‘‘J’’ tires by constructing
them with two extra plies than typical
load range ‘‘J’’ tires would have. Thus,
there is no risk that the incorrect
marking would lead to overloading by
an end-user. Moreover, the paper label
attached to each of the tires, which must
remain attached until the time of sale,
contains the correct load range
information, so Tireco believes there is
little, if any, possibility that a purchaser
will be misled.
In the case of the MILESTAR BS623
225/70R19.5 G/14 tires that can be used
in single or dual configuration, Tireco
states the following:
1. Tireco believes the fact that both of
the ratings were labeled as applicable to
‘‘DUAL’’ applications cannot
realistically create a safety problem.
Particularly since the tires are correctly
marked with the correct maximum load
capacity and inflation pressure in
accordance with The Tire and Rim
Association 2014 Year Book. Tireco also
believes that any prospective purchaser
of these tires, any operator of a truck
equipped with these tires, and any tire
retailer would immediately recognize
that the first rating, ‘‘1800Kg (3970LBS)
AT 760 KPa (110 PSI) COLD,’’ applies
to the ‘‘single’’ configuration, and the
second rating, ‘‘1700Kg (3750LBS) AT
760 kPa (110 PSI) COLD,’’ applies to the
‘‘dual’’ configuration. Such persons are
fully aware that for all medium truck
tires designed to be used in both single
and dual configurations, the maximum
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
58551
load and corresponding pressure
applicable to the single configuration is
listed above the information applicable
to the dual configuration. Such persons
also would be aware that there could be
no valid reason to have two different
maximum loads for the dual
configuration, and thus would
immediately understand that the first
load rating was meant to apply when
the tire was utilized in a single
configuration. Moreover, since the
applicable inflation pressure is the same
for both configurations, there is no risk
that the mismarking would cause an
operator to improperly inflate any of the
tires.
2. Tireco states that when a tire is
designed for use in both single and dual
configurations, FMVSS No. 119 requires
that compliance testing be conducted
based on the higher, more punishing tire
load. Accordingly, Tireco believes that
the tires will perform safely in both
configurations. Tireco also believes that
this principle was relied upon in grants
of two similar petitions filed by
Michelin North America, Inc. (See 71
FR 77092; December 22, 2006) and (69
FR 62512; October 26, 2004).
In addition, Tireco stated its belief
that all of the tires covered by this
petition meet or exceed the performance
requirements of FMVSS No. 119, as well
as the other labeling requirements of the
standard.
Tireco is not aware of any crashes,
injuries, customer complaints, or field
reports associated with the subject
mislabelings.
Tireco stated that, as soon as they
became aware of the noncompliance, it
immediately isolated the noncompliant
inventory in Tireco’s warehouses to
prevent any additional sales. Tireco will
bring all of the noncompliant tires into
full compliance with the requirements
of FMVSS No. 119, or else the tires will
be scrapped. Tireco also stated that the
fabricating manufacturer has corrected
the molds at the manufacturing plant,
such that no additional tires will be
manufactured with the noncompliance.
In summation, Tireco believes that the
described noncompliance of the subject
tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety, and that its petition should be
granted to exempt Tireco from
providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30118 and from remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30120.
NHTSA’S Decision
NHTSA Analysis: The purpose for the
load range marking letter required by
FMVSS No. 119 S6.5(j) is to inform the
tire purchaser and end user about the
E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM
25AUN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
58552
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2016 / Notices
load carrying capabilities of the tire. In
the case of the subject tires, Tireco states
that the information the load range letter
is meant to convey is contained on the
tire because the tire is labeled with
correct maximum load values, correct
load index, and correct ply rating. For
the MILESTAR brand tires: BS628 295/
80R22.5, BS623 245/70R19.5, BD733
245/70R19.5, BA902 10.00R20, BD733
225/70R19.5, BS623 235/75R17.5,
BS628 315/80R22.5, BS625 265/
70R19.5, and BS623 215/75R17.5,
Tireco states that the maximum load
and maximum permissible inflation
pressure markings conform with The
Tire and Rim Association (TRA) and
The European Tyre and Rim Technical
Organisation (ETRTO) yearbooks.
NHTSA agrees that the missing load
range letter is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety in this case because the
information intended to be conveyed by
the missing load range letter is
contained in other markings on the tires,
specifically: the maximum load and
maximum permissible inflation pressure
marked on the sidewall of the subject
tires correctly correlates to the
maximum loads and pressure listed by
either the TRA or ETRTO yearbooks.
Tireco also submitted a supplemental
letter for a group of tires branded
MILESTAR BS628 315/80R22.5 L/20
and describes the noncompliance as not
missing the tire load range letter, but
rather having an incorrect load range
letter marked onto the tire sidewall.
This group of tires was marked with the
load range letter ‘‘J’’, while these tires
should have been marked with the load
range letter ‘‘L’’.
NHTSA also agrees with Tireco that
the load range marking noncompliance
in the subject tires is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. In this case if a
consumer followed the load range ‘‘J’’
designation as marked, they would
interpret the labeled recommended load
carrying capacity to be lower than the
actual load carrying capacity. Since the
labeled tire load range ‘‘J’’ is lower than
the actual load range of the tire as
manufactured, Tireco understated the
load carrying capability of the tire. This
Tireco tire, in effect, has more load
carrying capability than the marking
load range ‘‘J’’ indicates.
Tireco also identified an additional
noncompliance affecting only the
MILESTAR BS623 225/70R19.5 G/14
tires. This tire, in addition to the load
range letter missing, was marked with
the word ‘‘DUAL’’ instead of the word
‘‘SINGLE’’ followed by its maximum
load rating marking of ‘‘1800 Kg (3970
LBS) AT 760 kPa (110 PSI) COLD’’, and
Tireco contends that this marking does
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Aug 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
not create a safety problem. NHTSA
disagrees for the following reasons:
1. The purpose of the word ‘‘SINGLE’’
marked on a tire, preceding the
maximum load rating, is to ensure that
purchasers and end users understand
that the loads and pressures following
the word ‘‘SINGLE’’ correspond to
single tire configuration loading. The
same serves for the word ‘‘DUAL’’.
Marking the word ‘‘DUAL’’ in lieu of the
word ‘‘SINGLE’’ creates a situation in
which the driver or end user of the
vehicle may overload the tires.
Specifically, the subject tires are
incorrectly marked, ‘‘MAX LOAD DUAL
1800 Kg (3970 LBS) AT 760 KPa (110
PSI) COLD’’ instead of ‘‘MAX LOAD
SINGLE 1800 Kg (3970 LBS) AT 760
KPa (110 PSI) COLD.’’ This creates a
scenario where a purchaser or end user
could believe it is appropriate to load
the tires in a dual configuration at the
higher of the two marked dual loads. In
this case, the correct dual load of the
subject tires is ‘‘MAX LOAD DUAL 1700
Kg (3750 LBS) AT 760 Kpa (110 PSI)
COLD’’ and the incorrect marking is
‘‘MAX LOAD DUAL 1800 Kg (3970 LBS)
AT 760 KPa (110 PSI) COLD’’. The tires
could be overloaded by 220 lbs per tire;
in a dual configuration on a single axle
the overloading factor is 4 thereby
creating an overloading condition of 880
lbs per axle. Overloading these tires is
a potential safety issue.
2. Tireco cites a petition for
inconsequential noncompliance filed by
Michelin North America, Inc. (71 FR
77092; December 22, 2006), which was
granted, and Tireco contends that the
same ruling should apply to their
petition. In Michelin’s case the
noncompliance was that the value of the
load following the word ‘‘DUAL’’ was
incorrectly marked. However, the load
values following the word ‘‘DUAL’’
were within the safety factor range
associated for similar radial truck tires
of its size. Furthermore a safety factor
could be computed since both
‘‘SINGLE’’ AND ‘‘DUAL’’ words were
marked on the tire. In Tireco’s case, the
safety factor cannot be computed since
the word ‘‘SINGLE’’ is not marked and
information is not readily available to
the end user or purchaser of the tire as
to which is the single load. Having
marked the word ‘‘DUAL’’ in place of
the word ‘‘SINGLE’’ eliminates the
inclusion of a safety factor for a dual
configuration. This results in a risk to
safety.
3. Tireco also states that that when a
tire is designed for use in both single
and dual configurations, FMVSS No.
119 requires that compliance testing be
done based on the higher, more
punishing tire load. Tireco states that
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
this indicates that the tires will
therefore perform safely in both the
single and dual configurations. Tireco
states that this principal is states in two
petitions filed by Michelin North
America, Inc. that were granted by the
agency. See71 FR 77092 (Dec. 22, 2006);
69 FR 62512 (Oct. 26, 2004). Both
petitions cited by Tireco involved tires
for which the maximum load and tire
pressure of the tire for the dual
configuration was incorrect but the
maximum load and tire pressure for the
single configuration was correctly
marked. In the 2006 petition, NHTSA
granted the petition, in part, because the
incorrect stated maximum load of the
tire in the dual configuration was still
the safety factor for use in that
configuration for that tire. NHTSA does
not believe the facts in the two Michelin
petitions cited by Tireco support a grant
of this petition. In the case of the
noncompliant tires that are the subject
of this petition, the load intended to be
used in the single configuration is
preceded by the word ‘‘DUAL.’’
Therefore, the safety factor for the tires
is eliminated in the as used condition,
as the tires could be mistakenly loaded
to the maximum load for the single
configuration when used in the dual
configuration. This increases the risk to
safety for the users of vehicles on which
these tires are mounted.
4. Tireco also contends that any
purchaser of the subject tires and any
operator of a truck equipped with the
tires would immediately recognize that
the first rating ‘‘MAX LOAD DUAL 1800
Kg (3970 LBS) AT 760 Kpa (110 PSI)
COLD’’ applies to the ‘‘SINGLE’’
configuration, and the second rating
‘‘MAX LOAD DUAL 1700 Kg (3750 LBS)
AT 760 Kpa (110 PSI) COLD’’ applies to
the ‘‘DUAL’’ configuration. Such
persons are fully aware that for all
medium truck tires designed to be used
in both single and dual configurations,
the maximum load and corresponding
pressure applicable to the single
configuration is listed above the
information applicable to the dual
configuration. NHTSA does not agree
with Tireco’s reasoning here since a tire
purchaser or end user of the subject tires
may not be fully aware that the first
rating applies to single configuration
loading unless the word ‘‘SINGLE’’ is
marked on the sidewall. As wrongly
marked with the word ‘‘DUAL,’’ instead
of the word ‘‘SINGLE,’’ the possibility
for confusion and associated safety
compromise exists.
5. Additionally on March 15, 2016,
Tireco submitted test data to NHTSA for
review. This data consisted of
endurance testing conducted by
Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co., LTD. to
E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM
25AUN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 165 / Thursday, August 25, 2016 / Notices
support its basis that the tires are safe
for use. This additional testing was
performed at loads, speeds, and timing
greater than the minimum requirements
of FMVSS No. 119 with a duration of
121.6 hours of testing which is 74.6
hours beyond the minimum
requirements. Yet the agency does not
agree that the additional data is
sufficient to support the overload
condition in the dual configuration
because the tires would be expected to
operate for much longer than 121.6
hours in the field.
The subject tires as improperly
marked indicate a maximum dual load
rating capacity value above that
designed for the tire. A tire loaded
above its designed maximum load rating
capacity creates a potential safety
problem for the driver of that motor
vehicle and others on the road.
For the reasons stated above, NHTSA
does not believe that the ‘‘DUAL’’
marking noncompliance on the subject
MILESTAR BS623 225/70R19.5 G/14
tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. NHTSA Decision: NHTSA has
decided to deny Tireco’s petition in part
and grant it in part.
In the case of the subset of the subject
tires that were marked ‘‘DUAL’’ instead
of ‘‘SINGLE,’’ Tireco has not met its
burden of persuasion that the
noncompliance with paragraph S6.5(d)
of FMVSS No. 119 is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
Tireco is obligated to provide
notification of and a free remedy for that
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118
and 30120.
In the cases of the described load
range letter marking noncompliances,
NHTSA has decided that Tireco has met
its burden of persuasion that the
noncompliances with paragraph
S6.5(j)of FMVSS No. 119 are
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety
and that Tireco is therefore exempted
from the obligation of providing
notification of, and a remedy for, the
load range letter marking
noncompliances under 49 U.S.C. 30118
and 30120.
NHTSA notes that the statutory
provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to
file petitions for a determination of
inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to
exempt manufacturers from only the
duties found in sections 30118 and
30120, respectively, to notify owners,
purchasers, and dealers of a defect or
noncompliance and to remedy the
defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any
decision on this petition applies only to
the subject tires that Tireco no longer
controlled at the time it determined that
the noncompliance existed. However,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Aug 24, 2016
Jkt 238001
any decision on this petition does not
relieve equipment distributors and
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale,
offer for sale, or introduction or delivery
for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant tires
under their control after Tireco notified
them that the subject noncompliance
existed.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8.
Issued on: August 19, 2016.
Gregory K. Rea,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2016–20330 Filed 8–24–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Information Collection
Revision; Comment Request; Diversity
Self-Assessment Template for Entities
Regulated by the OCC
Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency (OCC), Treasury.
ACTION: Notice and request for comment.
AGENCY:
The OCC, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork
and respondent burden, invites the
general public and other Federal
agencies to take this opportunity to
comment on a revised information
collection, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The OCC
may not conduct or sponsor, and a
respondent is not required to respond
to, an information collection unless it
displays a currently valid Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) control
number. The OCC previously received
OMB approval for a voluntary
information collection in the Final
Interagency Policy Statement
Establishing Joint Standards for
Assessing the Diversity Policies and
Practices of Entities Regulated by the
Agencies (Policy Statement). The OCC
now is soliciting comment on a revised
information collection which adds a
‘‘Diversity Self-Assessment Template for
Entities Regulated by the OCC’’
(Template) to facilitate the selfassessment described in the Policy
Statement.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before October 24, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Because paper mail in the
Washington, DC area and at the OCC is
subject to delay, commenters are
encouraged to submit comments by
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
58553
email, if possible. Comments may be
sent to: Legislative and Regulatory
Activities Division, Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, Attention:
1557–0334, 400 7th Street, SW., suite
3E–218, mail stop 9W–11, Washington,
DC 20219. In addition, comments may
be sent by fax to (571) 465–4326 or by
electronic mail to prainfo@occ.treas.gov.
You may personally inspect and
photocopy comments at the OCC, 400
7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219.
For security reasons, the OCC requires
that visitors make an appointment to
inspect comments by calling (202) 649–
6700 or, for persons who are deaf or
hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649–5597.
Upon arrival, visitors will be required to
present valid government-issued photo
identification and submit to security
screening in order to inspect and
photocopy comments.
All comments received, including
attachments and other supporting
materials, are part of the public record
and subject to public disclosure. Do not
include any information with your
comment, attachment, or supporting
materials that you consider confidential
or inappropriate for public disclosure.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance
Officer, (202) 649–5490 or, for persons
who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY,
(202) 649–5597, Legislative and
Regulatory Activities Division, Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th
Street, SW., suite 3E–218, mail stop
9W–11, Washington, DC 20219.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the
PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), certain
Federal agencies must obtain approval
from OMB for each collection of
information that they conduct or
sponsor. ‘‘Collection of information’’ is
defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) (and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) of the PRA implementing
regulations) to include agency requests
or requirements that members of the
public submit reports, keep records, or
provide information to a third party.
The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
directs these Federal agencies to provide
a 60-day notice in the Federal Register
concerning each proposed collection of
information before submitting the
collection to OMB for approval. To
comply with this requirement, the OCC
is publishing this notice of a proposed
revision to the collection of information.
Title: Diversity Self-Assessment
Template for Entities Regulated by the
OCC.
OMB Control No.: 1557–0334.
Description: The OCC previously
received OMB approval for a voluntary
information collection with respect to
the Policy Statement, pursuant to which
E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM
25AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 165 (Thursday, August 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58550-58553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20330]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0028; Notice 2]
Tireco, Inc., Ruling on Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Ruling on petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Tireco, Inc. (Tireco) determined that certain Milestar brand
medium truck tires do not comply with paragraph S6.5(j), and in some
cases also paragraph S6.5(d), of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles with a GVWR of More
Than 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) and Motorcycles. Tireco filed a
report dated February 5, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Tireco then petitioned NHTSA
under 49 CFR part 556 for a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA has decided to deny
Tireco's petition in part and grant it in part.
ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Abraham
Diaz,
[[Page 58551]]
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5310, facsimile
(202) 366-5930.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Tireco submitted a petition for
an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. In a letter dated May 7, 2015, Tireco also
submitted a supplement to its petition.
Notice of receipt of the Tireco's petition was published by NHTSA
in the Federal Register on June 24, 2015 (80 FR 36406) with a 30-day
public comment period. No comments were received. To view the petition
and all supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the
online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2015-0028.''
II. Replacement Tires Involved: Affected are approximately 31,316
Milestar brand medium truck tires that were imported by Tireco and
manufactured by Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co., LTD. in China between
June 3, 2013 and January 25, 2015. Refer to Tireco's 49 CFR part 573
report in docket NHTSA-2015-0028 for detailed descriptions of the
affected tires.
III. Noncompliance: Tireco states that the subject tires do not
comply with paragraph S6.5(j) of FMVSS No. 119 because the affected
tires are either not marked with the tire's load range letter, or
incorrectly marked with the letter ``J'' instead of the letter ``L'' to
designate the tire's load range. In addition, some of the affected
tires also do not comply with paragraph S6.5(d) of FMVSS No. 119
because, the maximum load ratings and pressures specified on the
sidewalls for both single and dual applications are both identified as
``DUAL.'' The first rating should have been identified as ``SINGLE.''
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119 requires in
pertinent part:
S6.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in this paragraph, each
tire shall be marked on each sidewall with the information specified
in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section. . . .
(d) The maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure
of the tire, shown as follows:
(Mark on tires rated for single and dual load): Max load single
_kg (_lb) at _kPa (_psi) cold. Max load dual _kg (_lb) at _kPa
(_psi) cold.
(Mark on tires rated only for single load): Max load _kg (_lb)
at _kPa (_psi) cold. . . .
(j) The letter designating the tire load range.
V. Summary of Tireco's Analyses: Tireco believes that the absence
of the load range marking on some of the subject tires causes little or
no risk of overloading of the tires by an end-user because the tires
are marked with the correct number of plies, the correct load index and
the correct maximum load values, which Tireco believes provide
equivalent information. Tireco also states that it has found one
previous inconsequential noncompliance petition (see 79 FR 78562;
December 30, 2014) in which the agency addressed the issue of a missing
load range marking and believes that the agency should apply the same
rationale in the case of its petition.
In the case of the MILESTAR BS628 315/80R22.5 L/20 tires marked
with the incorrect load range letter ``J,'' Tireco believes there is no
safety consequence since the tires actually were designed and
manufactured to be stronger than load range ``J'' tires by constructing
them with two extra plies than typical load range ``J'' tires would
have. Thus, there is no risk that the incorrect marking would lead to
overloading by an end-user. Moreover, the paper label attached to each
of the tires, which must remain attached until the time of sale,
contains the correct load range information, so Tireco believes there
is little, if any, possibility that a purchaser will be misled.
In the case of the MILESTAR BS623 225/70R19.5 G/14 tires that can
be used in single or dual configuration, Tireco states the following:
1. Tireco believes the fact that both of the ratings were labeled
as applicable to ``DUAL'' applications cannot realistically create a
safety problem. Particularly since the tires are correctly marked with
the correct maximum load capacity and inflation pressure in accordance
with The Tire and Rim Association 2014 Year Book. Tireco also believes
that any prospective purchaser of these tires, any operator of a truck
equipped with these tires, and any tire retailer would immediately
recognize that the first rating, ``1800Kg (3970LBS) AT 760 KPa (110
PSI) COLD,'' applies to the ``single'' configuration, and the second
rating, ``1700Kg (3750LBS) AT 760 kPa (110 PSI) COLD,'' applies to the
``dual'' configuration. Such persons are fully aware that for all
medium truck tires designed to be used in both single and dual
configurations, the maximum load and corresponding pressure applicable
to the single configuration is listed above the information applicable
to the dual configuration. Such persons also would be aware that there
could be no valid reason to have two different maximum loads for the
dual configuration, and thus would immediately understand that the
first load rating was meant to apply when the tire was utilized in a
single configuration. Moreover, since the applicable inflation pressure
is the same for both configurations, there is no risk that the
mismarking would cause an operator to improperly inflate any of the
tires.
2. Tireco states that when a tire is designed for use in both
single and dual configurations, FMVSS No. 119 requires that compliance
testing be conducted based on the higher, more punishing tire load.
Accordingly, Tireco believes that the tires will perform safely in both
configurations. Tireco also believes that this principle was relied
upon in grants of two similar petitions filed by Michelin North
America, Inc. (See 71 FR 77092; December 22, 2006) and (69 FR 62512;
October 26, 2004).
In addition, Tireco stated its belief that all of the tires covered
by this petition meet or exceed the performance requirements of FMVSS
No. 119, as well as the other labeling requirements of the standard.
Tireco is not aware of any crashes, injuries, customer complaints,
or field reports associated with the subject mislabelings.
Tireco stated that, as soon as they became aware of the
noncompliance, it immediately isolated the noncompliant inventory in
Tireco's warehouses to prevent any additional sales. Tireco will bring
all of the noncompliant tires into full compliance with the
requirements of FMVSS No. 119, or else the tires will be scrapped.
Tireco also stated that the fabricating manufacturer has corrected the
molds at the manufacturing plant, such that no additional tires will be
manufactured with the noncompliance.
In summation, Tireco believes that the described noncompliance of
the subject tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition should be granted to exempt Tireco from providing recall
notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and from
remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120.
NHTSA'S Decision
NHTSA Analysis: The purpose for the load range marking letter
required by FMVSS No. 119 S6.5(j) is to inform the tire purchaser and
end user about the
[[Page 58552]]
load carrying capabilities of the tire. In the case of the subject
tires, Tireco states that the information the load range letter is
meant to convey is contained on the tire because the tire is labeled
with correct maximum load values, correct load index, and correct ply
rating. For the MILESTAR brand tires: BS628 295/80R22.5, BS623 245/
70R19.5, BD733 245/70R19.5, BA902 10.00R20, BD733 225/70R19.5, BS623
235/75R17.5, BS628 315/80R22.5, BS625 265/70R19.5, and BS623 215/
75R17.5, Tireco states that the maximum load and maximum permissible
inflation pressure markings conform with The Tire and Rim Association
(TRA) and The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation (ETRTO)
yearbooks.
NHTSA agrees that the missing load range letter is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety in this case because the information intended
to be conveyed by the missing load range letter is contained in other
markings on the tires, specifically: the maximum load and maximum
permissible inflation pressure marked on the sidewall of the subject
tires correctly correlates to the maximum loads and pressure listed by
either the TRA or ETRTO yearbooks.
Tireco also submitted a supplemental letter for a group of tires
branded MILESTAR BS628 315/80R22.5 L/20 and describes the noncompliance
as not missing the tire load range letter, but rather having an
incorrect load range letter marked onto the tire sidewall. This group
of tires was marked with the load range letter ``J'', while these tires
should have been marked with the load range letter ``L''.
NHTSA also agrees with Tireco that the load range marking
noncompliance in the subject tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. In this case if a consumer followed the load range ``J''
designation as marked, they would interpret the labeled recommended
load carrying capacity to be lower than the actual load carrying
capacity. Since the labeled tire load range ``J'' is lower than the
actual load range of the tire as manufactured, Tireco understated the
load carrying capability of the tire. This Tireco tire, in effect, has
more load carrying capability than the marking load range ``J''
indicates.
Tireco also identified an additional noncompliance affecting only
the MILESTAR BS623 225/70R19.5 G/14 tires. This tire, in addition to
the load range letter missing, was marked with the word ``DUAL''
instead of the word ``SINGLE'' followed by its maximum load rating
marking of ``1800 Kg (3970 LBS) AT 760 kPa (110 PSI) COLD'', and Tireco
contends that this marking does not create a safety problem. NHTSA
disagrees for the following reasons:
1. The purpose of the word ``SINGLE'' marked on a tire, preceding
the maximum load rating, is to ensure that purchasers and end users
understand that the loads and pressures following the word ``SINGLE''
correspond to single tire configuration loading. The same serves for
the word ``DUAL''. Marking the word ``DUAL'' in lieu of the word
``SINGLE'' creates a situation in which the driver or end user of the
vehicle may overload the tires. Specifically, the subject tires are
incorrectly marked, ``MAX LOAD DUAL 1800 Kg (3970 LBS) AT 760 KPa (110
PSI) COLD'' instead of ``MAX LOAD SINGLE 1800 Kg (3970 LBS) AT 760 KPa
(110 PSI) COLD.'' This creates a scenario where a purchaser or end user
could believe it is appropriate to load the tires in a dual
configuration at the higher of the two marked dual loads. In this case,
the correct dual load of the subject tires is ``MAX LOAD DUAL 1700 Kg
(3750 LBS) AT 760 Kpa (110 PSI) COLD'' and the incorrect marking is
``MAX LOAD DUAL 1800 Kg (3970 LBS) AT 760 KPa (110 PSI) COLD''. The
tires could be overloaded by 220 lbs per tire; in a dual configuration
on a single axle the overloading factor is 4 thereby creating an
overloading condition of 880 lbs per axle. Overloading these tires is a
potential safety issue.
2. Tireco cites a petition for inconsequential noncompliance filed
by Michelin North America, Inc. (71 FR 77092; December 22, 2006), which
was granted, and Tireco contends that the same ruling should apply to
their petition. In Michelin's case the noncompliance was that the value
of the load following the word ``DUAL'' was incorrectly marked.
However, the load values following the word ``DUAL'' were within the
safety factor range associated for similar radial truck tires of its
size. Furthermore a safety factor could be computed since both
``SINGLE'' AND ``DUAL'' words were marked on the tire. In Tireco's
case, the safety factor cannot be computed since the word ``SINGLE'' is
not marked and information is not readily available to the end user or
purchaser of the tire as to which is the single load. Having marked the
word ``DUAL'' in place of the word ``SINGLE'' eliminates the inclusion
of a safety factor for a dual configuration. This results in a risk to
safety.
3. Tireco also states that that when a tire is designed for use in
both single and dual configurations, FMVSS No. 119 requires that
compliance testing be done based on the higher, more punishing tire
load. Tireco states that this indicates that the tires will therefore
perform safely in both the single and dual configurations. Tireco
states that this principal is states in two petitions filed by Michelin
North America, Inc. that were granted by the agency. See71 FR 77092
(Dec. 22, 2006); 69 FR 62512 (Oct. 26, 2004). Both petitions cited by
Tireco involved tires for which the maximum load and tire pressure of
the tire for the dual configuration was incorrect but the maximum load
and tire pressure for the single configuration was correctly marked. In
the 2006 petition, NHTSA granted the petition, in part, because the
incorrect stated maximum load of the tire in the dual configuration was
still the safety factor for use in that configuration for that tire.
NHTSA does not believe the facts in the two Michelin petitions cited by
Tireco support a grant of this petition. In the case of the
noncompliant tires that are the subject of this petition, the load
intended to be used in the single configuration is preceded by the word
``DUAL.'' Therefore, the safety factor for the tires is eliminated in
the as used condition, as the tires could be mistakenly loaded to the
maximum load for the single configuration when used in the dual
configuration. This increases the risk to safety for the users of
vehicles on which these tires are mounted.
4. Tireco also contends that any purchaser of the subject tires and
any operator of a truck equipped with the tires would immediately
recognize that the first rating ``MAX LOAD DUAL 1800 Kg (3970 LBS) AT
760 Kpa (110 PSI) COLD'' applies to the ``SINGLE'' configuration, and
the second rating ``MAX LOAD DUAL 1700 Kg (3750 LBS) AT 760 Kpa (110
PSI) COLD'' applies to the ``DUAL'' configuration. Such persons are
fully aware that for all medium truck tires designed to be used in both
single and dual configurations, the maximum load and corresponding
pressure applicable to the single configuration is listed above the
information applicable to the dual configuration. NHTSA does not agree
with Tireco's reasoning here since a tire purchaser or end user of the
subject tires may not be fully aware that the first rating applies to
single configuration loading unless the word ``SINGLE'' is marked on
the sidewall. As wrongly marked with the word ``DUAL,'' instead of the
word ``SINGLE,'' the possibility for confusion and associated safety
compromise exists.
5. Additionally on March 15, 2016, Tireco submitted test data to
NHTSA for review. This data consisted of endurance testing conducted by
Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co., LTD. to
[[Page 58553]]
support its basis that the tires are safe for use. This additional
testing was performed at loads, speeds, and timing greater than the
minimum requirements of FMVSS No. 119 with a duration of 121.6 hours of
testing which is 74.6 hours beyond the minimum requirements. Yet the
agency does not agree that the additional data is sufficient to support
the overload condition in the dual configuration because the tires
would be expected to operate for much longer than 121.6 hours in the
field.
The subject tires as improperly marked indicate a maximum dual load
rating capacity value above that designed for the tire. A tire loaded
above its designed maximum load rating capacity creates a potential
safety problem for the driver of that motor vehicle and others on the
road.
For the reasons stated above, NHTSA does not believe that the
``DUAL'' marking noncompliance on the subject MILESTAR BS623 225/
70R19.5 G/14 tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA
Decision: NHTSA has decided to deny Tireco's petition in part and grant
it in part.
In the case of the subset of the subject tires that were marked
``DUAL'' instead of ``SINGLE,'' Tireco has not met its burden of
persuasion that the noncompliance with paragraph S6.5(d) of FMVSS No.
119 is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tireco is
obligated to provide notification of and a free remedy for that
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
In the cases of the described load range letter marking
noncompliances, NHTSA has decided that Tireco has met its burden of
persuasion that the noncompliances with paragraph S6.5(j)of FMVSS No.
119 are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that Tireco is
therefore exempted from the obligation of providing notification of,
and a remedy for, the load range letter marking noncompliances under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
from only the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition applies only to the subject tires that Tireco no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve equipment
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after Tireco
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Issued on: August 19, 2016.
Gregory K. Rea,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2016-20330 Filed 8-24-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
