[Federal Register: March 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 60)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15632-15635]
[DOCID:fr30mr10-22]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1050; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASW-3]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment to and Establishment of Restricted Areas and
Other Special Use Airspace; Razorback Range Airspace Complex, AR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to restructure the restricted areas and
other special use airspace (SUA) located in the vicinity of Fort
Chaffee, AR. The Air National Guard (ANG) requested these modifications
to the Razorback Range Airspace Complex, by establishing two new
restricted areas, renaming an existing restricted area, and amending
the boundaries section of the legal description of the Hog High North
military operation area (MOA) that is contained in the airspace
complex. Unlike restricted areas which are designated under Title 14
Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73, MOAs are not rulemaking
airspace actions. However, since the proposed R-2402B infringes on the
Hog High North MOA, the FAA is including a discussion of the Hog High
North MOA change in this NPRM. The ANG requested these airspace changes
to permit more realistic aircrew training in modern tactics to be
conducted in the Razorback Range Airspace Complex and to enable more
efficient use of the National Airspace System (NAS).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 14, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2009-
1050 and Airspace Docket No. 09-ASW-3 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace and Rules
Group, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments

are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical,
economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2009-1050 and Airspace Docket No. 09-ASW-3) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Federal Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES
section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2009-1050 and Airspace Docket No. 09-ASW-3.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_
amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Federal
Docket Management System Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and
phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, Operations
Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 2601 Meacham Blvd.,
Fort Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Background

    The special use airspace of the Razorback Range Airspace Complex
includes restricted areas and MOAs. Restricted areas are regulatory
airspace areas that are designated under 14 CFR part 73 rulemaking
procedures to contain activities that may present a hazard to
nonparticipating aircraft including ground-based and air-delivered
weapons employment. No person may operate an aircraft within a
restricted area without the advance permission of the using or
controlling agency.
    The Razorback Range Airspace Complex MOAs are used primarily as
maneuvering areas for aircraft conducting air-to-ground and air-to-air
training scenarios and may be used in conjunction with the existing
restricted areas. MOAs are nonregulatory airspace areas that are
established administratively and published in the NFDD. MOAs are
established to segregate non-hazardous military flight activities from
aircraft operating in accordance with instrument flight rules (IFR),
and to advise pilots flying under visual flight rules (VFR) where these
activities are conducted. IFR aircraft may be routed through an active
MOA only when air traffic control can provide approved separation from
the MOA activity. VFR pilots are not restricted from flying in an
active MOA, but are advised to exercise caution while doing so.
Normally, MOA proposals are not published in an NPRM but, instead, are
advertised for public comment through a nonrule circular distributed by
the FAA Service Center office to aviation interests in the affected
area. When a nonrulemaking action is an integral part of a rulemaking
action, FAA procedures allow for the nonrulemaking proposal to be
included in the NPRM. Since the proposed restricted area R-2402B
infringes on the Hog High North MOA, the FAA is including a description
of the Hog High North MOA amendment in this NPRM. Comments on the
proposed MOA change may also be submitted as indicated above in the
``Comments Invited'' section of this NPRM.
    The ANG requested modifications to the Razorback Range Airspace
Complex to better support essential air-to-ground weapons delivery
profiles and advanced tactical training requirements. Driving the
request are the technological advances that have been made in aircraft
targeting systems that allow accurate weapons delivery from higher
altitudes and greater distances from the target. The dimensions of the
Razorback Range restricted area (R-2402) have not changed in decades
and cannot accommodate the requirements of the modern combat tactics
and increased capabilities of today's fighter aircraft. This airspace
shortfall resulted in the request for additional restricted airspace at
the Razorback Range. The proposed restricted areas, if approved, would
accommodate the ANG's training requirements to perform combat missions
such as Close Air Support, Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses, Combat
Search and Recovery, Time Sensitive Targeting, and Forward Air
Controller--Airborne during day and night time conditions.
    While the Razorback Range supports training in low to medium
altitudes, the lateral boundary of the range's existing restricted area
is inadequate for training at medium to high altitudes. The restricted
areas R-2402B and R-2402C, as proposed, would expand the lateral
boundaries of the Razorback Range restricted area airspace
approximately five nautical miles north and east of R-2402, and
approximately three nautical miles south of R-2402 into the Hog High
North MOA. If approved, the proposed airspace will provide the
maneuvering airspace needed to permit air-to-ground training in various
tactics that are being used in combat today.
    The vertical and lateral boundaries of the Hog High North MOA will
not change as a result of this airspace action. However, since the
proposed R-2402B restricted area penetrates the MOA, the legal
description will be amended to exclude R-2402B when the restricted area
is active.
    The Razorback Range Airspace Complex is, and will remain,
designated as ``joint-use'' airspace. This means that, during periods
when the airspace complex, or parts of the complex, are not needed by
the using agency for its designated purposes, the airspace will be
returned to the controlling agency for access by other NAS users. The
Memphis Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) is the controlling
agency for the Razorback Range Airspace Complex.

The Proposed MOA Change

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to the Hog High North MOA
boundaries section of the legal description to exclude the proposed
restricted area R-2402B, which overlaps airspace with the MOA, when
that restricted area is active. The altitude and time of use
descriptions for Hog High North MOA will remain unchanged. This change
would prevent airspace conflict with the overlapping proposed R-2402B.

Hog High North MOA, AR [Amended]

    By removing the current boundaries description and substituting the
following: Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 35[deg]13'50'' N., long.
94[deg]12'01'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]11'33'' N., long. 94[deg]12'01'' W.;
thence east along Arkansas State Highway 10 to lat. 35[deg]10'20'' N.,
long. 94[deg]01'01'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]15'00'' N., long.
94[deg]01'01'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]05'00'' N., long. 93[deg]34'01'' W.;
at lat. 34[deg]51'00'' N., long. 93[deg]25'01'' W.; to lat.
34[deg]38'12'' N., long. 93[deg]31'18'' W.; to lat. 34[deg]41'30'' N.,
long. 93[deg]45'53'' W.; to lat. 34[deg]40'58'' N., long.
93[deg]50'18'' W.; to lat. 34[deg]47'19'' N., long. 94[deg]26'52'' W.;
to lat. 34[deg]55'00'' N., long. 94[deg]23'08'' W.; to lat.
35[deg]05'31'' N., long. 94[deg]17'57'' W.; to the point of beginning,
excluding R-2402B when active.

The MOA change described here will also be published in the National
Flight Data Digest (NFDD).

The Restricted Area Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 73 to expand the
restricted area airspace at the Razorback Range Airspace Complex to
permit training in real-world combat tactics. While the ceiling of R-
2402, at 30,000 feet MSL, is considered adequate for medium to high
altitude weapons employment tactics training scenarios today, the
lateral distance from the target area does not support medium to high
altitude weapons delivery. Thus, aircrew training that is essential for
combat readiness today is limited. This proposal would add two new
restricted areas, R-2402B and R-2402C, to provide the vertical and
lateral maneuvering airspace needed to practice medium to high altitude
standoff weapon delivery profiles. Restricted area R-2402B is proposed
to extend approximately five nautical miles to the east and three
nautical miles to the south (into Hog High North MOA) of R-2402, from
10,000 feet MSL to FL 220. Restricted area R-2402C is proposed to
extend approximately five nautical miles to the east and north of R-
2402, from 13,000 feet MSL to FL 220. The proposed restricted areas
will be activated when maneuvering airspace is required and cannot be
activated without R-2402 being active also. When the proposed R-2402B
and R-2402C restricted areas are not required for training
requirements, that airspace will be released to Memphis ARTCC for
access by nonparticipating aircraft, as appropriate.
    Finally, to keep the naming convention of the R-2402 complex
standardized, the FAA proposes to change the ``R-2402 Fort Chaffee,
AR'' restricted area name to ``R-2402A Fort Chaffee, AR''. To ensure
the time of designation of all R-2402 restricted areas in the Razorback
Range Airspace Complex are consistent and cannot be misinterpreted, the
time of designation information for R-2402 (proposed to become R-2402A)
would also change the ``Monday through Sunday'' currently listed in the
legal description to ``daily.'' The remaining R-2402 legal description
information will remain the same when re-published as R-2402A.
    Section 73.24 of Title 14 CFR part 73 was republished in FAA Order
7400.8R, effective February 16, 2009.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under Department of Transportation (DOT)
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would restructure the SUA at the Razorback Range Airspace
Complex, Fort Chaffee, AR.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures,'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

    1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p.389.

Sec.  73.24  [Amended]

    2. Sec.  73.24 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

R-2402 Fort Chaffee, AR [Removed]

R-2402A Fort Chaffee, AR [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 35[deg]18'09'' N., long.
94[deg]03'01'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]17'00'' N., long. 94[deg]03'01''
W.; to lat. 35[deg]17'00'' N., long. 94[deg]01'01'' W.; to lat.
35[deg]10'20'' N., long. 94[deg]01'01'' W.; thence west along
Arkansas State Highway No. 10 to lat. 35[deg]11'33'' N., long.
94[deg]12'01'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]13'50'' N., long. 94[deg]12'01''
W.; to lat. 35[deg]18'10'' N., long. 94[deg]12'01'' W.; to lat.
35[deg]18'12'' N., long. 94[deg]09'52'' W.; thence east along
Arkansas State Highway No. 22 to the point of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. Surface to and including 30,000 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. Sunrise to sunset, daily; other times by
NOTAM.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Memphis ARTCC.
    Using agency. Commanding General, Fort Chaffee, AR.
* * * * *

R-2402B Fort Chaffee, AR [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 35[deg]18'26'' N., long.
93[deg]55'41'' W.; thence clockwise along a 7-NM radius circle
centered at lat. 35[deg]15'26'' N., long. 94[deg]03'24'' W.; to lat.
35[deg]10'55'' N., long. 94[deg]09'57'' W.; thence east along
Arkansas State Highway 10 to lat. 35[deg]10'20'' N., long.
94[deg]01'01'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]17'00'' N., long. 94[deg]01'01''
W.; to lat. 35[deg]17'00'' N., long. 94[deg]03'01'' W.; to lat.
35[deg]18'09'' N., long. 94[deg]03'01'' W.; thence east along
Arkansas State Highway 22 to the point of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. 10,000 feet MSL to, but not including, FL
220.
    Time of designation. Sunrise to sunset, daily; other times by
NOTAM.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Memphis ARTCC.
    Using agency. Arkansas Air National Guard, 188th Fighter Wing,
Ft. Smith, AR.

R-2402C Fort Chaffee, AR [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 35[deg]21'48'' N., long.
94[deg]06'59'' W.; thence clockwise along a 7-NM radius circle
centered at lat. 35[deg]15'26'' N., long. 94[deg]03'24'' W.; to lat.
35[deg]18'26'' N., long. 93[deg]55'41'' W.; thence west along
Arkansas State Highway 22 to lat. 35[deg]18'12''

N., long. 94[deg]09'52'' W.; to the point of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. 13,000 feet MSL to, but not including, FL
220.
    Time of designation. Sunrise to sunset, daily; other times by
NOTAM.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Memphis ARTCC.
    Using agency. Arkansas Air National Guard, 188th Fighter Wing,
Ft. Smith, AR.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 19, 2010.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
[FR Doc. 2010-7075 Filed 3-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63493-63494]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22665]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10280-01-R8]

Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to
State Operating Permit for Hunter Power Plant (Emery County, Utah)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final order on petition to object to state operating
permit.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA Administrator signed an order dated September 27,
2022, denying the petition submitted by the Sierra Club requesting that
EPA object to the issuance of the Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating
permit (no.<PHONE_NUMBER>) issued to the PacifiCorp Hunter Power Plant in
Castle Dale, Emery County, Utah, by the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality (UDAQ). The September
27, 2022 Order responds to Sierra Club's January 14, 2022 petition
regarding title V operating permit no.<PHONE_NUMBER> (2021 Permit). The
Order constitutes final action on the petition.

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of the Order and petition
electronically at https://www.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits/title-v-petition-database. To reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission, for
this action we do not plan to offer hard copy review of these documents
or other supporting information. Please email or call the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section if you need to make
alternative arrangements for access to the documents.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Fagnant, Air Permitting and
Monitoring Branch (8ARD-PM), EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado, 80202-1129. Phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to
review and, as appropriate, the authority to object to operating
permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the
CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR
70.8(d) authorize any person to petition the EPA Administrator to
object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the
expiration of EPA's 45-day review period if EPA has not objected on its
own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the
permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public
comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner
demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the
comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after this period.
Pursuant to sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the Act, a petition for
judicial review of those portions of the Order that deny issues in the
petition may be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit within 60 days from the date this document appears
in the Federal Register.

State Operating Permit for Hunter Power Plant (Emery County, Utah)

    EPA received petitions from the Sierra Club, requesting that EPA
object to the 2016, 2020, and 2021 operating permits for the Hunter
Power Plant. Among other things, the Sierra Club claims that the
operating permit is deficient because it does not include Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting requirements. More
specifically, the Sierra Club asserts that the operating permit should
include Best Achievable Control Technology requirements for nitrogen
oxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, terms and conditions
necessary to adequately protect national ambient air quality standards,
and PSD increments. EPA denied the 2016 petition on October 16, 2017;
however, the Sierra Club sought judicial review of a portion of the
2017 Order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
On July 2, 2020, the Tenth Circuit issued a decision vacating and
remanding the 2017 Order. EPA's January 13, 2021 Order responded to the
Tenth Circuit's decision, replaced the vacated portion of EPA's 2017
Order, and separately responded to the 2020 Petition. On October 1,
2021, UDAQ transmitted a proposed permit to EPA for the Agency's 45-day
review. EPA did not object during this period. On November 19, 2021,
UDAQ finalized the Permit. On January 14, 2022, the Sierra Club filed
the Petition that this order responds to.
    On September 27, 2022, the Administrator issued an Order denying
the January 14, 2022 Petition. The Order explains EPA's basis for
denying the petition.

    Dated: October 13, 2022.
KC Becker,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2022-22665 Filed 10-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                                    Attachment E

Summary of Consultations for the Renewal ICR, entitled "Certification of Pesticide Applicators (Renewal)"
OMB Control No. 2070-0029; EPA ICR No. 0155.13; Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0654

 Representatives contacted from the following state agencies:
 Arizona Department of Agriculture
 Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development
 Nevada Department of Agriculture
 South Carolina Department of Pesticide Regulation

 Questions and Responses:
	EPA provided the same set of questions to each representative for their consideration and feedback. EPA received only one set of responses, provided by the Nevada Department of Agriculture. The questions asked, and their feedback to those questions, are provided below:

Responses from the Nevada Department of Agriculture

 Publicly Available Data

 Is any of the information you are required to report for the Certification of Pesticide Applicator regulation (without the 2017 revisions) available from a public source, or already collected by an office other than the Office of Pesticide Programs at EPA or by another agency?  No, the information is only available to the public through NDA's record request procedures.

 If yes, where can you find the data? (Is that data a true duplication or a repetition of only certain data elements?)

   Frequency of Collection

 If the Agency were to collect the information less frequently, would it produce the same outcome?  Yes

 Clarity of Instructions

     The ICR is intended to require that respondents provide certain data so that the Agency can utilize them.

 Do you know that you are required to report information?  Yes

 Based on the instructions you are given for reporting information (regulations, PR Notices, etc.), is it clear what you are required to do and how to submit information?  Yes
 If not, what suggestions do you have to make the instructions clearer?

 Is it difficult to submit information in ways that are clear, logical and easy to complete?  Sometimes.  With the new program, it is difficult to determine if the information is being saved or saved to the correct location within the program.

 Are there forms associated with this process?  Not with CPARD; it is just a data entry program.
 If so, do you use them? Are they clear, logical, and easy to complete?

 Electronic Reporting and Record keeping

     The Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires agencies make available to the public electronic reporting alternatives to paper-based submissions by 2003, unless there is a strong reason for not doing so. One such reason is that, at the present time, the Agency is unable to ensure the security of CBI that might be transmitted over the Internet.

 Do you keep and/or report information/records electronically?  Yes
 If yes, in what format(s)?  Usually in Microsoft Word, Access or Excel.

 What benefits do electronic submission of information bring you in terms of burden reduction or greater efficiency in terms of compiling the information?  We usually keep data, that is electronically submitted, stored in either Microsoft Excel, Access or Word.  This assists NDA staff with compiling the information prior to submittal (which can be uploaded directly from that NDA database).

 Burden and Costs

 Are EPA's estimated labor wage rates accurate?  Both state government and pest control wages vary throughout the state, but the wage rate table (Attachment H) seems accurate (for May 2016).

 The Agency assumes there is no capital cost associated with this activity. A capital cost is a one-time set up cost of a project after which there will only be recurring operational or running costs.
 Is this a correct assumption?  Correct, no capital cost.
 If not, what are your capital costs?

 Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates are associated only with the paperwork involved with this ICR (e.g., the ICR does not include estimated burden hours and costs for conducting studies), are the estimated burden hours and cost estimates accurate?  Not sure.

 If you provide burden and cost estimates that are substantially different from EPA's estimates, please provide an explanation of how you arrived at your estimates.

 Are there other costs that should be accounted for that EPA may have been missed?  No


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 100 (Thursday, May 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30963-30964]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12359]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0083; Notice 2]

Michelin North America, Incorporated, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Grant of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: Michelin North America, Inc. (MNA), has determined that
certain Michelin brand passenger car replacement tires, do not fully
comply with paragraph S5.5 \1\ of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 139, New pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles. MNA has
filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports on June 2, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In its petition MNA states its belief that the subject tires
do not meet the load marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 571.139
S5.5(d). However, the actual noncompliance is due to an error in the
tire size designation marking required by 49 CFR 571.139 S5.5(b)
which causes the load marking to appear to be incorrect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556, MNA has petitioned
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. Notice of receipt of the
petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period, on April
4, 2012 in the Federal Register (77 FR 20483). 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-2011-0083.''
    For further information on this decision contact Mr. Jack Chern,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile
(202) 493-0073.
    Tires Involved: Affected are approximately 17,500 Michelin Primacy
MXV4 TL passenger car replacement tires labeled as sizes P205 65 R15
94H, P205 65 R15 94V, and P225 55 R17 97H that were manufactured by SC
Michelin Romania SA in Victoria, Romania between January 9, 2011 and
May 28, 2011.
    Summary of MNA's Analysis And Arguments: MNA explained that the
noncompliance is a tire sidewall labeling error. A prefix letter ``P''
was inadvertently added to the tire size designation required by
paragraph S5.5 (b) by FMVSS No. 139.
    The tire was designed to comply with the European Tyre and Rim
Technical Organization (ETRTO) standard for maximum load and inflation
pressure. The Max Load and Max Pressure markings on the tire are
correct and the tire passes all certification requirements at the
marked loads/pressures under 49 CFR 571.139. The mix of ETRTO loads
with the ``P''-metric size designation causes the tire to be
noncompliant with both the ETRTO standard and the Tire and Rim
Association (T&RA) standard, thus becoming noncompliant with the
labeling requirements of 49 CPR 571.139 S5.5. All other markings are
compliant with the FMVSS requirements.
    MNA stated its belief that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:
    1. Both the 205/65 R15 and the 225/55 R17 radial tire were
originally conceived as a Euro-metric radial tire. Both tires when
certifying to DOT requirements were tested in accordance with safety
standard FMVSS No. 139 as well as the ETRTO standard for dimensions,
pressure, load, and performance. The subject tires meet or exceed all
of the minimum performance requirements for FMVSS No. 139 at the load
and pressure marked on the respective sidewall.
    2. The P-metric version of the tire dimensions specify a maximum
load and pressure that is less than the maximum load and associated
pressure of the Euro-metric dimension. Performance capabilities as P-
metric dimensions exceed all P-metric requirements.

    3. Should the subject tires be selected and fitted based on their
markings, no possibility of tire overloading exists.
    4. The P-metric dimensional marks on the subject tires would be
treated as such in the replacement market. At the dealer or consumer
level, the inconsistency between the dimensional marking and the
maximum load marking may lead to some confusion at the time of
installation, but fitment would still be acceptable.
    5. Whether the tires are fitted as P-metric dimensions per the
current industry fitment guide, or fitted according to the subject
tire's sidewall's maximum load. These tires do not risk the possibility
of being overloaded when making a replacement tire selection for
vehicle fitment.
    In addition, MNA states that it has corrected the problem that
caused the noncompliance so that it will not reoccur in future
production.
    In summation, MNA believes that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to
exempt it from providing recall notification of noncompliance as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
    Requirement Background: Paragraph S5.5 of FMVSS No. 139
specifically states:

    S5.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in paragraphs (a)
through (i) of S5.5 each tire must be marked on each sidewall with
the information specified in S5.5 (a) through (d) and on one
sidewall with the information specified in S5.5 (e) through (i)
according to the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this standard.
The markings must be placed between the maximum section width and
the bead on at least one sidewall, unless the maximum section width
of the tire is located in an area that is not more than one-fourth
of the distance from the bead to the shoulder of the tire. If the
maximum section width falls within that area, those markings must
appear between the bead and a point one-half the distance from the
bead to the shoulder of the tire, on at least one sidewall. The
markings must be in letters and numerals not less than 0.078 inches
high and raised above or sunk below the tire surface not less than
0.015 inches* * *
    (b) The tire size designation as listed in the documents and
publications specified in S4.1.1 of this standard;* * *

    NHTSA'S Analysis of MNA'S Reasoning: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d)
and 49 U.S.C. 30120(h) and the rule implementing those provisions at 49
CFR part 556, Michelin North America, Inc. (``MNA''), has petitioned
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. Specifically MNA states that
the inconsistence does not meet the load marking requirements of 49 CFR
571.139 S5.5(d).
    The affected tires in this petition of noncompliance are
approximately 133,906 tires that were manufactured, of which
approximately 17,500 Michelin P205/65R15 and P225/55R17 Primacy MXV4 TL
tires were released and/or imported to the United States market whose
sidewall markings contain the letter ``P'' as a prefix to the Euro-
metric dimension marking, resulting in the creation of an unintended P-
metric dimension, for which the marked maximum load value is not
consistent with the published T&RA standard. As stated by Michelin
North American, Inc ``MNA'', ``whether the subject tires are fitted as
P-metric dimensions per the current industry fitment guide, or fitted
following the subject tire's sidewall marked maximum load, these tires
do not risk the possibility of being overloaded when marking a
replacement tire selection for fitment.
    NHTSA Decision: NHTSA agrees with Michelin North America, Inc.
(``MNA'') that the tires in question, Michelin 205/65R15 and 225/55R17,
that the noncompliances are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
The agency believes that the true measure of inconsequentiality to
motor vehicle safety in this case is that there is no impact on the
operational safety of the vehicles on which these tires are mounted.
    As MNA stated, both subject tires are marked on both the inboard
and outboard sidewall with the prefix ``P''. Since the intended design
max load specifications of these tires is higher than those specified
with the ``P'' prefix under the T&RA standard then we can conclude that
the parameters specified in the T&RA standard do not surpass the
parameters molded on the tire sidewall, and hence safety is not
compromised.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that MNA has
met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 139 noncompliance for
the replacement tires identified in MNA's Noncompliance Information
Report is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, MNA's
petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted from the obligation
of providing notification of, and a remedy for, that noncompliance
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
only from 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, this decision
only applies to the 17,500 replacement tires that MNA no longer
controlled at the time it determined that a noncompliance existed in
the subject tires. However, the granting of this petition does not
relieve tire 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
MNA 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: May 17, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-12359 Filed 5-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P