Tireco, Inc., Ruling on Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 58550-58553 [2016-20330]

Download as PDF 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: http:// 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: http://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