Sumitomo Rubber USA, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 3050-3052 [2018-00222]

Download as PDF 3050 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Notices privacyNotice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov. Robert C. Lauby, Associate Administrator for Safety, Chief Safety Officer. [FR Doc. 2018–01054 Filed 1–19–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–06–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration [FTA Docket No. 2017–0027] Notice of Request for Revisions of an Information Collection AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of request for comments. This notice announces the intention of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the revisions of the following information collection: Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program. DATES: Comments must be submitted before March 23, 2018. ADDRESSES: To ensure that your comments are not entered more than once into the docket, submit comments identified by the docket number by only one of the following methods: 1. Website: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the U.S. Government electronic docket site. (Note: The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) electronic docket is no longer accepting electronic comments.) All electronic submissions must be made to the U.S. Government electronic docket site at www.regulations.gov. Commenters should follow the directions below for mailed and hand-delivered comments. 2. Fax: 202–366–7951. 3. Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001. 4. Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket number for this notice at the beginning of your comments. Submit two copies of your comments if you submit them by mail. For confirmation that FTA has received your comments, include a self- ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Jan 19, 2018 Jkt 244001 addressed stamped postcard. Note that all comments received, including any personal information, will be posted and will be available to internet users, without change, to www.regulations.gov. You may review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published April 11, 2000, or you may visit www.regulations.gov. Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents and comments received, go to www.regulations.gov at any time. Background documents and comments received may also be viewed at the U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vanessa Williams, Office of Program Management (202) 366–4818 or email: Vanessa.Williams@dot.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) The necessity and utility of the information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the FTA; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. of a Federal land management agency, alone or in partnership with a Federal land management agency or other governmental or non- governmental participant. The purpose of the program was to provide for the planning and capital costs of alternative transportation systems that will enhance the protection of national parks and Federal lands; increase the enjoyment of visitors’ experience by conserving natural, historical, and cultural resources; reduce congestion and pollution; improve visitor mobility and accessibility; enhance visitor experience; and ensure access to all, including persons with disabilities. The Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in the Parks program was repealed under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21). However, funds previously authorized for programs repealed by MAP–21 remain available for their originally authorized purposes until the period of availability expires, the funds are fully expended, the funds are rescinded by Congress, or the funds are otherwise reallocated. Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: Approximately 4 hours for each of the 15 respondents. Estimated Total Annual Burden: 60 hours. Frequency: Annually. William Hyre, Deputy Associate Administrator for Administration. [FR Doc. 2018–00880 Filed 1–19–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–57–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Title: 49 U.S.C. Section 5320 Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program National Highway Traffic Safety Administration OMB Number: 2132–0574 Background: Section 3021 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), as amended, established the Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program (Transit in Parks Program—49 U.S.C. 5320). The program was administered by FTA in partnership with the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. The program provided grants to Federal land management agencies that manage an eligible area, including but not limited to the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Reclamation; and State, tribal and local governments with jurisdiction over land in the vicinity of an eligible area, acting with the consent [Docket No. NHTSA–2017–0010; Notice 2] PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Sumitomo Rubber USA, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Denial of petition. AGENCY: Sumitomo Rubber USA, LLC (SRUSA), has determined that certain Sumitomo Kelly brand commercial truck tires do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and Motorcycles. SRUSA filed a noncompliance report dated January 3, 2017. SRUSA also petitioned NHTSA on January 31, 2017, for a decision that the SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\22JAN1.SGM 22JAN1 ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Notices subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abraham Diaz, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366–5310, facsimile (202) 366–3081. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Overview: Sumitomo Rubber USA, LLC (SRUSA), has determined that certain Sumitomo Kelly brand commercial truck tires do not fully comply with S6.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and Motorcycles (49 CFR 571.119). SRUSA filed a noncompliance report dated January 3, 2017, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. SRUSA also petitioned NHTSA on January 31, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. Notice of receipt of the petition was published with a 30-day public comment period, on April 20, 2017, in the Federal Register (82 FR 18684). No comments were received. To view the petition and all supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions to locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2017– 0010.’’ II. Tires Involved: Affected are approximately 138 Sumitomo Kelly KDA size 11R22.5 commercial truck tires manufactured between December 4, 2016, and December 17, 2016. III. Noncompliance: SRUSA explains that the noncompliance is that the required markings on one sidewall of the subject tires were inadvertently omitted and therefore do not comply with paragraph S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119. IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119, labelled ‘‘Tire Markings’’ includes the requirements relevant to this petition: • Each tire shall be marked on each sidewall with the information specified in paragraphs (a) through (j) of S6.5. • The markings shall be placed between the maximum section width (exclusive of sidewall decorations or curb ribs) and the bead on at least one sidewall, unless the maximum section width of the tire is located in an area VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Jan 19, 2018 Jkt 244001 which is not more than one-fourth of the distance from the bead to the shoulder of the tire. V. Summary of SRUSA’s Petition: SRUSA described the subject noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. In support of its petition, SRUSA submitted the following reasoning: SRUSA submits that the condition described above is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. The tires were manufactured as designed and meet or exceed all performance requirements of applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. All of the subject tires are marked with the correct information; however, the information appears only on one sidewall. Therefore, the noncompliant condition does not affect motor vehicle safety because the required information is still visible and available to the consumer on one sidewall of the tire. Additionally, SRUSA is not aware of any customer complaints related to this condition. The affected tire mold was immediately corrected and no additional tires were or will be manufactured with this noncompliance. SRUSA also noted that NHTSA had previously granted petitions for similar tire information noncompliances because of evidence showing that most consumers do not base tire purchases on tire information found on the tire sidewall. Moreover, SRUSA argued that the absence of the markings on one sidewall has no impact on the operational performance of the tires at issue or on the safety of the vehicles on which these tires may be mounted. SRUSA concluded by expressing the belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted. In a supplemental email dated February 24, 2017, SRUSA stated that the subject tires are not asymmetric tires, not labeled with the words ‘‘OUTERSIDE’’ or ‘‘OUTER,’’ and there is no designated outer or inner sidewall, thus, the tires may be mounted with the missing information on the inner or outward facing sidewall. In a supplemental email on May 31, 2017, SRUSA informed NHTSA that the TIN is readily available on the sidewall that was marked correctly. To view SRUSA’s petition, analyses, and any supplemental documentation in its entirety you can visit https:// www.regulations.gov by following the PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 3051 online instructions for accessing the dockets and by using the docket ID number for this petition shown in the heading of this notice. NHTSA’s Decision NHTSA’s Analysis: NHTSA has reviewed SRUSA’s petition and has determined that the petitioner has not met the burden of persuasion that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The omission of the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure on one sidewall of the subject tires presents a safety hazard and is not inconsequential. The importance of the maximum load carrying capabilities and pressure label for tires was discussed in the FMVSS No. 119 final rule (Nov. 13, 1973; 38 FR 31299). In that document, NHTSA explained the purpose of labeling tires with the maximum load and pressure as follows: ‘‘The trucking industry questioned the advisability of labeling maximum inflation and load rating on the tire because it appeared to prohibit the adjustment of pressures to road conditions. The purpose of the labeling is to . . . warn the user of the tire’s maximum capabilities.’’ Furthermore, in the same rulemaking, NHTSA provided information to manufacturers that it was necessary to have loading and pressure markings on both sidewalls: ‘‘Several manufacturers suggested that labeling appear on only one side of a tire when both sides of the tire, as mounted, will be available for inspection. Accordingly, motorcycle tires must now be labeled on one sidewall only, but the inaccessibility of both sidewalls on trucks and bus tires for visual inspection precludes one-sidewall labeling of these categories.’’ Since the subject tires can be installed or mounted on a vehicle with either sidewall facing outboard, some of these tires will be mounted on vehicles with the sidewall containing the missing information facing outboard. As the tires at issue are intended for use on heavy vehicles, it is quite possible that the necessary loading and pressure markings could be on a sidewall immediately adjacent to another tire in a dual wheel configuration. In such a case, the aforementioned markings would only be accessible if the dual wheel assembly is taken apart. Failing to mark the maximum load and corresponding inflation pressure for that load on both sidewalls of the tires puts an enormous burden on end users to ensure that the subject tires will be properly installed, used, and serviced in accordance with the tire’s maximum capability. It is reasonable to expect the E:\FR\FM\22JAN1.SGM 22JAN1 3052 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Notices Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8. Jeffrey M. Giuseppe, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. 2018–00222 Filed 1–19–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Fiscal Service Prompt Payment Interest Rate; Contract Disputes Act Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Treasury. ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES AGENCY: The complete 2018 Pricing of Numismatic Gold, Commemorative Gold, and Platinum Products Grid will be available at https:// catalog.usmint.gov/coin-programs/ american-eagle-coins. Pricing can vary weekly dependent upon the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) gold price weekly average. The pricing for all United States Mint numismatic gold and VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Jan 19, 2018 Jkt 244001 Notice of prompt payment interest rate; Contract Disputes Act. ACTION: For the period beginning January 1, 2018, and ending on June 30, 2018, the prompt payment interest rate is 25⁄8 per centum per annum. DATES: Applicable January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2018. ADDRESSES: Comments or inquiries may be mailed to: E-Commerce Division, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, 401 14th Street SW, Room 306F, Washington, DC 20227. Comments or inquiries may also be emailed to PromptPayment@ fiscal.treasury.gov. SUMMARY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas M. Burnum, E-Commerce Division, (202) 874–6430; or Thomas Kearns, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 874–7036. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An agency that has acquired property or service from a business concern and has failed to pay for the complete delivery of property or service by the required payment date shall pay the business concern an interest penalty. 31 U.S.C. 3902(a). The Contract Disputes Act of 1978, Sec. 12, Public Law 95–563, 92 Stat. 2389, and the Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. 3902(a), provide for the calculation of interest due on claims at the rate established by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary of the Treasury has the authority to specify the rate by which the interest shall be computed for interest payments under section 12 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 and under the Prompt Payment Act. Under the Prompt Payment Act, if an interest platinum products is evaluated every Wednesday and modified as necessary. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy Olson; Numismatic and Bullion Directorate; United States Mint, 801 9th Street NW, Washington, DC 20220; or call 202–354–7500. penalty is owed to a business concern, the penalty shall be paid regardless of whether the business concern requested payment of such penalty. 31 U.S.C. 3902(c)(1). Agencies must pay the interest penalty calculated with the interest rate, which is in effect at the time the agency accrues the obligation to pay a late payment interest penalty. 31 U.S.C. 3902(a). ‘‘The interest penalty shall be paid for the period beginning on the day after the required payment date and ending on the date on which payment is made.’’ 31 U.S.C. 3902(b). Therefore, notice is given that the Secretary of the Treasury has determined that the rate of interest applicable for the period beginning January 1, 2018, and ending on June 30, 2018, is 25⁄8 per centum per annum. David A. Lebryk, Fiscal Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2018–01049 Filed 1–19–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810–AS–P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY United States Mint 2018 Pricing of Numismatic Gold, Commemorative Gold, and Platinum Products Grid United States Mint, Department of the Treasury. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The United States Mint announces 2018 revisions to the pricing of gold and platinum numismatic products. An excerpt of the grid appears below: SUMMARY: Dated: January 17, 2018. David Motl, Acting Deputy Director, United States Mint. [FR Doc. 2018–01007 Filed 1–19–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P Authority: 31 U.S.C. 5111, 5112 & 9701. PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22JAN1.SGM 22JAN1 EN22JA18.000</GPH> vehicle user to overload a tire without the explicit guidance provided by the required sidewall markings. Finally, SRUSA stated that NHTSA had previously granted similar noncompliances, yet, they cited no specific petitions to support this statement. In fact, NHTSA recently denied a petition where a manufacturer omitted the markings designating the maximum load and corresponding inflation pressure for that load, See 82 FR 41678. NHTSA’s Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that SRUSA has not met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 119 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, SRUSA’s petition is hereby denied and SRUSA is obligated to provide notification of, and a remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3050-3052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00222]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0010; Notice 2]


Sumitomo Rubber USA, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Denial of petition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Sumitomo Rubber USA, LLC (SRUSA), has determined that certain 
Sumitomo Kelly brand commercial truck tires do not fully comply with 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic 
Tires for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms 
(10,000 pounds) and Motorcycles. SRUSA filed a noncompliance report 
dated January 3, 2017. SRUSA also petitioned NHTSA on January 31, 2017, 
for a decision that the

[[Page 3051]]

subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle 
safety.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abraham Diaz, Office of Vehicle Safety 
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
telephone (202) 366-5310, facsimile (202) 366-3081.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    I. Overview: Sumitomo Rubber USA, LLC (SRUSA), has determined that 
certain Sumitomo Kelly brand commercial truck tires do not fully comply 
with S6.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New 
Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 
kilograms (10,000 pounds) and Motorcycles (49 CFR 571.119). SRUSA filed 
a noncompliance report dated January 3, 2017, pursuant to 49 CFR part 
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. SRUSA also 
petitioned NHTSA on January 31, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) 
and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an exemption from the 
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the 
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor 
vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published with a 30-day 
public comment period, on April 20, 2017, in the Federal Register (82 
FR 18684). No comments were received. To view the petition and all 
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System 
(FDMS) website at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online 
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2017-0010.''
    II. Tires Involved: Affected are approximately 138 Sumitomo Kelly 
KDA size 11R22.5 commercial truck tires manufactured between December 
4, 2016, and December 17, 2016.
    III. Noncompliance: SRUSA explains that the noncompliance is that 
the required markings on one sidewall of the subject tires were 
inadvertently omitted and therefore do not comply with paragraph S6.5 
of FMVSS No. 119.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119, labelled 
``Tire Markings'' includes the requirements relevant to this petition:
     Each tire shall be marked on each sidewall with the 
information specified in paragraphs (a) through (j) of S6.5.
     The markings shall be placed between the maximum section 
width (exclusive of sidewall decorations or curb ribs) and the bead on 
at least one sidewall, unless the maximum section width of the tire is 
located in an area which is not more than one-fourth of the distance 
from the bead to the shoulder of the tire.
    V. Summary of SRUSA's Petition: SRUSA described the subject 
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is 
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, SRUSA submitted the following 
reasoning:
    SRUSA submits that the condition described above is inconsequential 
as it relates to motor vehicle safety. The tires were manufactured as 
designed and meet or exceed all performance requirements of applicable 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. All of the subject tires are 
marked with the correct information; however, the information appears 
only on one sidewall. Therefore, the noncompliant condition does not 
affect motor vehicle safety because the required information is still 
visible and available to the consumer on one sidewall of the tire. 
Additionally, SRUSA is not aware of any customer complaints related to 
this condition. The affected tire mold was immediately corrected and no 
additional tires were or will be manufactured with this noncompliance.
    SRUSA also noted that NHTSA had previously granted petitions for 
similar tire information noncompliances because of evidence showing 
that most consumers do not base tire purchases on tire information 
found on the tire sidewall. Moreover, SRUSA argued that the absence of 
the markings on one sidewall has no impact on the operational 
performance of the tires at issue or on the safety of the vehicles on 
which these tires may be mounted.
    SRUSA concluded by expressing the belief that the subject 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, 
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the 
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the 
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    In a supplemental email dated February 24, 2017, SRUSA stated that 
the subject tires are not asymmetric tires, not labeled with the words 
``OUTERSIDE'' or ``OUTER,'' and there is no designated outer or inner 
sidewall, thus, the tires may be mounted with the missing information 
on the inner or outward facing sidewall. In a supplemental email on May 
31, 2017, SRUSA informed NHTSA that the TIN is readily available on the 
sidewall that was marked correctly.
    To view SRUSA's petition, analyses, and any supplemental 
documentation in its entirety you can visit https://www.regulations.gov 
by following the online instructions for accessing the dockets and by 
using the docket ID number for this petition shown in the heading of 
this notice.

NHTSA's Decision

    NHTSA's Analysis: NHTSA has reviewed SRUSA's petition and has 
determined that the petitioner has not met the burden of persuasion 
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle 
safety. The omission of the maximum load rating and corresponding 
inflation pressure on one sidewall of the subject tires presents a 
safety hazard and is not inconsequential.
    The importance of the maximum load carrying capabilities and 
pressure label for tires was discussed in the FMVSS No. 119 final rule 
(Nov. 13, 1973; 38 FR 31299). In that document, NHTSA explained the 
purpose of labeling tires with the maximum load and pressure as 
follows:

    ``The trucking industry questioned the advisability of labeling 
maximum inflation and load rating on the tire because it appeared to 
prohibit the adjustment of pressures to road conditions. The purpose 
of the labeling is to . . . warn the user of the tire's maximum 
capabilities.''

    Furthermore, in the same rulemaking, NHTSA provided information to 
manufacturers that it was necessary to have loading and pressure 
markings on both sidewalls:

    ``Several manufacturers suggested that labeling appear on only 
one side of a tire when both sides of the tire, as mounted, will be 
available for inspection. Accordingly, motorcycle tires must now be 
labeled on one sidewall only, but the inaccessibility of both 
sidewalls on trucks and bus tires for visual inspection precludes 
one-sidewall labeling of these categories.''

    Since the subject tires can be installed or mounted on a vehicle 
with either sidewall facing outboard, some of these tires will be 
mounted on vehicles with the sidewall containing the missing 
information facing outboard. As the tires at issue are intended for use 
on heavy vehicles, it is quite possible that the necessary loading and 
pressure markings could be on a sidewall immediately adjacent to 
another tire in a dual wheel configuration. In such a case, the 
aforementioned markings would only be accessible if the dual wheel 
assembly is taken apart. Failing to mark the maximum load and 
corresponding inflation pressure for that load on both sidewalls of the 
tires puts an enormous burden on end users to ensure that the subject 
tires will be properly installed, used, and serviced in accordance with 
the tire's maximum capability. It is reasonable to expect the

[[Page 3052]]

vehicle user to overload a tire without the explicit guidance provided 
by the required sidewall markings.
    Finally, SRUSA stated that NHTSA had previously granted similar 
non-compliances, yet, they cited no specific petitions to support this 
statement. In fact, NHTSA recently denied a petition where a 
manufacturer omitted the markings designating the maximum load and 
corresponding inflation pressure for that load, See 82 FR 41678.
    NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds 
that SRUSA has not met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 119 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, 
SRUSA's petition is hereby denied and SRUSA is obligated to provide 
notification of, and a remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 
30118 and 30120.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2018-00222 Filed 1-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P