[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55449-55450]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22057]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971; FRL-9916-60-OAR]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol
Coatings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), ``National Volatile
Organic Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings'' (EPA ICR No.
2289.03, OMB Control number 2060-0617) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, the EPA is
soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed
information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension
of the ICR, which is currently approved through January 31, 2015. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0971 in the subject line, online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kaye Whitfield, Sector Policies
and Programs Division (Mail Code D243-02), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The
telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about the EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act,
the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i)
Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the
accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information, including the validity of the methodology
and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility and clarity of
the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval. At that time, the EPA will issue another Federal
Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: The EPA is required under section 183(e) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) to regulate volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
the use of consumer and commercial products. Pursuant to CAA section
183(e)(3), the EPA published a list of consumer and commercial products
and a schedule for their regulation (60 FR 15264). Aerosol coatings are
included on the list, and the standards for such coatings are codified
at 40 CFR part 59, subpart E. The reports required under the standards
enable the EPA to identify coating formulations manufactured, imported
or distributed in the United States, and to determine the product-
weighted reactivity. The ICR addresses the burden for activities
conducted in 3-year increments after promulgation of the national VOC
emission standards for aerosol coatings. Regulated entities read
instructions to determine how they are affected by the rule. They are
required to submit initial notifications when an aerosol coating is
manufactured and notification of changes in the initial report, to
report formulation data and exemptions claimed and to maintain records.
In addition, regulated entities are required to submit triennial
reports that include formulation data and VOC usage.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Respondents to this information
collection are manufacturers, distributors and importers of aerosol
coatings. These regulated entities fall within the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 32551, ``Paint and Coating

Manufacturing'' and NAICS Code 325998 ``All Other Miscellaneous
Chemical Production and Preparation Manufacturing.''
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under 40 CFR part 59,
subpart E.
    Estimated number of respondents: 64 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annual, triennial.
    Total estimated burden: 12,265 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,033,626 in labor costs. There are no
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in hours in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by
OMB.

    Dated: September 5, 2014.
Kevin Culligan,
Acting Director, Sector Policies and Programs Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-22057 Filed 9-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 133)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 39251]
[DOCID:fr12jy06-28]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 35 and 37

[Docket Nos. RM05-25-000 and RM05-17-000]

Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission
Service

June 19, 2006.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On May 19, 2006, the Commission issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking proposing amendments to its regulations adopted in Order
Nos. 888 and 889, and to the pro forma open access transmission tariff,
to ensure that transmission services are provided on a basis that is
just, reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential, 70 FR
32635, June 6, 2006. The reply comment period is being extended at the
request of the Edison Electric Institute.

DATES: Reply comments are due September 20, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket Nos. RM05-25-
000 and RM05-17-000, by one of the following methods:
     Agency Web site: http://www.ferc.gov. Follow the

instructions for submitting comments via the eFiling link found in the
Comment Procedures section of the preamble.
     Mail: Commenters unable to file comments electronically
must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of their comments
to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please refer to the Comment
Procedures section of the preamble for additional information on how to
file paper comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel Hedberg (Technical Information), Office of Energy Markets and
Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Kathleen Barr[oacute]n (Legal Information), Office of the General
Counsel--Energy Markets, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
David Withnell (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel--
Energy Markets, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice Extending Reply Comment Period

    On June 16, 2006, Edison Electric Institute filed a motion for an
extension of time to file reply comments in response to the
Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued May 19, 2006 in the
above-docketed proceeding. Preventing Undue Discrimination and
Preference in Transmission Service, 115 FERC ] 61,211 (2006). Upon
consideration, the date for filing reply comments in this proceeding is
extended to and including September 20, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-10724 Filed 7-11-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 158)]
[Notices]
[Page 50770]
[DOCID:fr17au10-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-D-0404]

Guidance for Industry on Organ-Specific Warnings: Internal
Analgesic, Antipyretic, and Antirheumatic Drug Products for Over-the-
Counter Human Use--Small Entity Compliance Guide; Availability

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a guidance for small business entities entitled ``Organ
Specific Warnings: Internal Analgesic, Antipyretic, and Antirheumatic
Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Use--Small Entity Compliance
Guide.'' This guidance is intended to help small businesses understand
and comply with FDA's regulation entitled ``Organ-Specific Warnings:
Internal Analgesic, Antipyretic, and Antirheumatic Drug Products for
Over-the-Counter Use; Final Monograph'' (74 FR 19385, April 29,
2009).\1\ The guidance describes the organ-specific labeling
requirements in plain language and provides answers to common questions
on how to comply with the rule. This guidance was prepared in
accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As amended November 25, 2009 (74 FR 61512).

DATES:  Submit either electronic or written comments on agency
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
guidances at any time.

ADDRESSES:  Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance
to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed
adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the
guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://
www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Arlene Solbeck, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, rm. 5426, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-2090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a new guidance for small
business entities entitled ``Organ-Specific Warnings: Internal
Analgesic, Antipyretic, and Antirheumatic Drug Products for Over-the-
Counter Human Use--Small Entity Compliance Guide.'' This small entity
compliance guide applies to over-the-counter (OTC) internal analgesic,
antipyretic, and antirheumatic (IAAA) drug products that contain
acetaminophen or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug ingredients
(NSAIDs). The labeling of those products must include specific warnings
about the risks of liver injury when using acetaminophen, and stomach
bleeding when using nonsteroidal NSAIDs, as well as related information
appearing on the principal display panel. Manufacturers must be in
compliance with the rule beginning on April 29, 2010.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
agency's current thinking on organ-specific labeling requirements for
OTC IAAA drug products. It does not create or confer any rights for or
on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An
alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no
longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/
GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http:/
/www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: August 5, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-20252 Filed 8-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 45 (Thursday, March 9, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13059-13062]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04627]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 45 / Thursday, March 9, 2017 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-8836; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-17-AD;
Amendment 39-18815; AD 2017-05-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Division Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D,
PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by
an uncontained failure of a high-pressure turbine (HPT) hub during
takeoff. This AD requires an inspection to measure the surface
condition of the aft side web/rim fillet of HPT 1st stage hubs and
removal from service of hubs that fail inspection. We are issuing this
AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective April 13, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 13,
2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Pratt & Whitney Division, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT
06118; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may view this
service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on
the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8836.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
8836; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo-Ann Theriault, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 781-
238-7199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to PW PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077,
PW4077D, PW4084, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 turbofan engines. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 26, 2016 (81 FR
74358). The NPRM was prompted by an uncontained failure of an HPT hub
during takeoff. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection to measure
the surface condition of the aft side web/rim fillet of HPT 1st stage
hubs and removal from service of hubs that fail inspection. We are
issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPT 1st stage hub,
uncontained hub release, damage to the engine, and damage to the
airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment.

Request for Previous Credit

    All Nippon Airways (ANA), Japan Airlines (JAL), PW, and United
Airlines (UAL) requested that we give credit for hubs inspected per PW
Special Instruction (SI) No. 250F-16, dated June 22, 2016 or PW SI No.
250F-16, Revision A, dated July 14, 2016.
    We agree. We added a Credit for Previous Actions paragraph to give
credit for inspections accomplished per these SIs.

Request To Provide Risk Analysis

    ANA requested that information related to the risk analysis and
likelihood of failure that provided the basis of this AD be added to
the compliance section of this AD. ANA noted that the root cause of
this event is a machining anomaly and it would like to see the FAA's
estimate on how a machining anomaly could lead to uncontained failure
of the HPT hub.
    We disagree. The purpose of the compliance section of an AD is to
provide the necessary actions needed to provide an acceptable level of
safety. The FAA does not typically provide risk assessments in an AD as
this information is often, as is the case with this AD, considered
proprietary. FAA's general methodology for risk analysis can be found
in FAA AC 39-8, ``Continued Airworthiness Assessments of Powerplant and
Auxiliary Power Unit Installations of Transport Category Airplanes.''
We did not change this AD.

Request To Confirm Definition

    ANA requested that we confirm that replacement of the main gearbox
or angle gearbox is not defined as a major flange separation, which is
the basis for an ``engine shop visit,'' as defined in the NPRM (81 FR
74358, October 26, 2016).
    We agree. Replacement of the main gearbox or angle gearbox
replacement does not require major flange separation and does not
constitute an ``engine shop visit.'' We note, however, that this AD no
longer requires inspections at engine shop visits and we removed this
definition from this AD.

Request To Remove New HPT Hubs From Inspection Requirements

    ANA, JAL, and PW requested that paragraph (e) of this AD not
require inspection for new HPT 1st stage hubs. These hubs include HPT
1st stage hubs marked with detail revision number part number (P/N)
55L901 Rev B or P/N 55L801 Rev E, or subsequent revision letters. The
commenters indicated that per PW Service Bulletin (SB) PW4G-112-72-342,
dated September 23, 2016, HPT hubs marked with these detail

revision numbers do not need to be inspected because of improvements to
PW's inspection program.
    We disagree. The root cause of the HPT hub failure is a machining
anomaly in the aft web/rim fillet area of the HPT 1st stage hub.
Although manufacturing changes are being made to reduce the chance of
this defect occurring, these changes have not been fully implemented.
New production parts, therefore, are still susceptible to this defect.
We did not change this AD.

Request To Revise Compliance Time for Previously-Inspected Hubs

    ANA requested that for hubs that have been previously inspected,
but not marked, the compliance should be at the next piece-part
exposure rather than at next engine shop visit. ANA indicated that PW
SI No. 250F-16, dated June 22, 2016, and PW SI No. 250F-16, Revision A,
dated July 14, 2016, do not require marking of the hubs after
inspection. Part A, paragraph 2.C., and Part B, paragraph 1.C. of PW SB
PW4G-112-72-342, dated September 23, 2016, however, require marking the
parts after inspection. ANA indicated that it has some parts that have
been inspected but not marked. ANA commented that the inspection
interval for HPT 1st stage hubs that have already been inspected should
be at the next piece-part exposure.
    We disagree. This AD requires a one-time replication inspection of
HPT 1st stage hubs for machining mismatch in the aft web/rim fillet.
Hubs that have passed this inspection do not require re-inspection. For
those parts that were inspected using PW SI No. 250F-16, dated June 22,
2016, or PW SI No. 250F-16, Revision A, dated July 14, 2016, we are
providing credit for that inspection provided the hubs passed the
inspection. We did not change this AD based on this comment.

Request To Limit Applicability by Serial Number

    UAL requested that a list of affected serial numbers be added to
the applicability section of this AD. UAL commented that the part
revision letter markings can wear over time and that revision numbers
are not listed on the FAA Form 8130.
    We disagree. This AD applies to all PW PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077,
PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 turbofan engines. The
applicability of this AD is not limited by part or serial number. We
did not change this AD.

Request To Mark HPT Hubs That Have Passed Inspection

    PW requested that the PW SB PW4G-112-72-342, dated September 23,
2016, be marked on HPT 1st stage hubs that pass the inspection required
by this AD. This would make the AD consistent with this SB, which
instructs operators to mark the SB number on the front turbine hub
assembly.
    We disagree. This AD requires hub inspections but does not require
specific part markings or record-keeping procedures. If operators can
show that hubs have been previously inspected and passed this
inspection, then they have complied with this AD. Each operator has the
responsibility to establish its own record-keeping procedures. We did
not change this AD.

Request To Define Compliance by Engine Model

    UAL requested that the compliance section of this AD identify that
the Accomplishment Instructions, Part A, of PW SB PW4G-112-72-342,
dated September 23, 2016, apply to PW4074D, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090,
and PW4090-3 engine models and the Accomplishment Instructions, Part B,
of this SB apply only to PW4074 and PW4077 engine models.
    We agree. We determined that revising the compliance requirements
to make these specific to each group of engine models will make them
clearer to the operators. We revised the compliance section of this AD
to clarify that Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions is used to do
the inspection for PW4074D, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3
engine models, while Part B is used for PW4074 and PW4077 engine
models.

Request To Revise Compliance Schedule

    PW, UAL, and JAL requested that we revise the compliance schedule
to match the requirements of PW SB PW4G-112-72-342, dated September 23,
2016. PW indicated that the compliance schedule in this SB has been
validated by a PW risk assessment. UAL indicated there are instances
when an engine major mating flange is separated only to address a
different engine module and the HPT is not exposed during these times.
    We agree. We find that the compliance intervals suggested by the
commenters still maintain an acceptable level of safety. We changed
this AD by revising the time to perform the inspection from at the
``next engine shop visit'' to either the ``next time the engine is
disassembled sufficiently to expose the HPT module'' (for PW4074D,
PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 models) or the ``next time the
HPT module is disassembled sufficiently to expose the HPT 1st stage
hub'' (for PW4074 and PW4077 models).

Support for the NPRM

    The National Transportation Safety Board commented that it supports
the proposed rule as written.

Revision to Applicability

    We revised the applicability section of this AD by removing the
PW4084 model engine. Although this engine is listed on Type Certificate
Data Sheet No. E46NE, Revision 8, dated January 23, 2012, it was never
produced.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed PW SB PW4G-112-72-342, dated September 23, 2016. This
PW SB provides guidance on performing the HPT 1st stage hub web/rim
fillet replication inspection and measurement for the affected HPT
hubs. This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    We also reviewed PW SI No. 250F-16, dated June 22, 2016, and PW SI
No. 250F-16, Revision A, dated July 14, 2016. These SIs provide
guidance on performing the replication inspection of the HPT 1st stage
hub.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 119 engines installed on airplanes
of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
              Action                        Labor cost            Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection........................  1 work-hour x $85 per                  $0              $85          $10,115
                                     hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2017-05-05 Pratt & Whitney Division: Amendment 39-18815; Docket No.
FAA-2016-8836; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-17-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 13, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW4074,
PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 turbofan
engines.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an uncontained failure of a high-
pressure turbine (HPT) hub during takeoff. We are issuing this AD to
prevent failure of the HPT 1st stage hub, uncontained hub release,
damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) After the effective date of this AD, perform the HPT 1st
stage hub web/rim fillet replication inspection and measurement as
follows:
    (i) For PW4074D, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 engine
models, the next time the engine is disassembled sufficiently to
expose the HPT module, use the Accomplishment Instructions, Part A,
paragraphs 2.A. and 2.B.(1) through 2.B.(4) of PW Service Bulletin
(SB) PW4G-112-72-342, dated September 23, 2016, to do the
inspection.
    (ii) For PW4074 and PW4077 engine models, the next time the HPT
module is disassembled sufficiently to expose the HPT 1st stage hub,
use the Accomplishment Instructions Part B, paragraphs 1.A. and
1.B.(1) through 1.B.(4) of PW SB PW4G-112-72-342, dated September
23, 2016, to do the inspection.
    (2) If the hub fails the inspection, remove the hub from service
before further flight and replace with a part eligible for
installation.

(f) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install, or re-
install into any engine, any HPT 1st stage hub that has not been
inspected and passed the inspection required by paragraph (e) of
this AD.

(g) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for the replication inspection of the HPT
1st stage hub that is required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, if
you performed the inspection before the effective date of this AD
using PW Special Instruction (SI) No. 250F-16, dated June 22, 2016,
or PW SI No. 250F-16, Revision A, dated July 14, 2016.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Jo-Ann
Theriault, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) PW SI No. 250F-16, dated June 22, 2016, and PW SI No. 250F-
16, Revision A, dated July 14, 2016, which are not incorporated by
reference, can be obtained from PW using the contact information in
paragraph (j)(3) of this AD.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Pratt & Whitney Division Service Bulletin PW4G-112-72-342,
dated September 23, 2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For PW service information identified in this AD, contact
Pratt & Whitney Division, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06118;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
781-238-7125.
    (5) You may view this service information at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 27, 2017.
Robert J. Ganley,
Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-04627 Filed 3-8-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 236 (Friday, December 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75690-75694]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26769]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0038; Notice 2]

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Pirelli Tire, LLC, Denial of Petitions
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Denial of petitions.

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

SUMMARY: Daimler AG (DAG) and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA)
collectively referred to as ``DAG-Mercedes-Benz,'' and Pirelli Tire,
LLC (Pirelli), have determined that certain Pirelli P7 Cinturato RUN
FLAT radial tires that were installed as original equipment in certain
model year (MY) 2018-2019 Mercedes-Benz motor vehicles and also sold as
replacement equipment do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light
Vehicles. Pirelli filed a noncompliance report dated February 25, 2019,
and later amended it on March 15, 2019, and DAG-Mercedes-Benz filed a
noncompliance report dated March 4, 2019. Pirelli subsequently
petitioned NHTSA (the ``Agency'') on March 18, 2019, and DAG-Mercedes-
Benz petitioned NHTSA on March 27, 2019, for a decision that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety. This notice announces and explains the denial of DAG-Mercedes-
Benz's and Pirelli's petitions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayton Lindley, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    DAG-Mercedes-Benz and Pirelli (the ``petitioners'') have determined
that certain Pirelli P7 Cinturato RUN FLAT radial tires that were
installed as original equipment in certain MY 2018-2019 Mercedes-Benz
motor vehicles and also sold as replacement equipment do not fully
comply with paragraph S5.5(c) of FMVSS No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial
Tires for Light Vehicles (49 CFR 571.139).

    Pirelli filed a noncompliance report dated February 25, 2019, and
later amended the report on March 15, 2019, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Pirelli
subsequently petitioned NHTSA, on March 18, 2019, 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, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and
49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    DAG-Mercedes-Benz filed a noncompliance report dated March 4, 2019,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA, on March 27, 2019,\1\
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, pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for
Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NHTSA notes that DAG-Mercedes-Benz's petition was
incorrectly dated March 27, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notice of receipt of the petitioners' petitions was published with
a 30-day public comment period, on May 19, 2020, in the Federal
Register (85 FR 30014). One comment was received. To view the
petitions, all supporting documents, and the comment from the public,
log onto the Federal Docket Management System's website at https://www.regulations.gov/, and then follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ``NHTSA-2019-0038.''

II. Vehicles and Tires Involved

    Approximately 2,023 Pirelli P7 Cinturato RUN FLAT replacement
radial tires, size 245/45R18 100 Y (the ``subject tires''),
manufactured between April 3, 2017, and February 15, 2019, are
potentially involved.
    The subject tires were installed as original equipment on
approximately 206 of the following MY 2018-2019 Mercedes-Benz motor
vehicles, manufactured between May 4, 2017, and February 7, 2019:

 2018 Mercedes-Benz E400 4MATIC Cabriolet
 2018 Mercedes-Benz E400 Coupe
 2018 Mercedes-Benz E400 Cabriolet
 2019 Mercedes-Benz E450 4MATIC Cabriolet
 2019 Mercedes-Benz E450 Cabriolet
 2019 Mercedes-Benz E450 Coupe
 2019 Mercedes-Benz E450 4MATIC Coupe

III. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S5.5(c) of FMVSS No. 139, includes the requirements
relevant to the petitions. Each tire must be marked on each sidewall
with the maximum permissible inflation pressure, and in the case of the
subject tires, the maximum permissible inflation pressure must be
followed in parenthesis by the equivalent load rating in pounds,
rounded to the nearest whole number.

IV. Noncompliance

    The petitioners explain that the noncompliance is that the subject
tires, manufactured by Pirelli and sold as replacement equipment, as
well as sold by DAG-Mercedes-Benz as original equipment on certain MY
2018-2019 Mercedes-Benz motor vehicles, were erroneously marked with
the incorrect maximum permissible inflation pressure. Therefore, the
tires do not meet the requirements of paragraph S5.5(c) of FMVSS No.
139. Specifically, the subject tires are marked with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 340 kPa, when they should have been
marked with the maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa.

V. Summary of Petitions

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Petitions,'' are the views and arguments provided by the
petitioners. They do not reflect the views of the Agency. The
petitioners described the subject noncompliance and stated their belief
that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
    On January 15, 2019, DAG-Mercedes-Benz received preliminary
information from the Korea Automobile Testing & Research Institute
(KATRI), which indicated that when KATRI tested the subject tires
installed on a DAG-Mercedes-Benz vehicle, using the test specifications
applicable for 340 kPa (the maximum permissible tire pressure that was
indicated on the sidewall of the tire) the tire reportedly failed the
strength test.\2\ DAG-Mercedes-Benz relayed information about KATRI's
test to Pirelli Deutschland GMBH, who informed Pirelli about this
issue. Pirelli subsequently concluded that the subject tires were
erroneously marked with a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 340
kPa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The test was conducted according to the applicable Korean
standard. DAG-Mercedes-Benz stated that the applicable Korean
standard is equivalent to FMVSS No. 139 in all material respects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of their petitions, Pirelli and DAG-Mercedes-Benz
submitted the following reasoning:
    1. The petitioners cited the following noncompliance petitions that
the Agency has granted previously:
    a. DAG-Mercedes-Benz cited Continental Tire the America, LLC, Grant
of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance. See 83 FR
36668, July 30, 2018.
    b. Pirelli cited Tireco Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance. See 76 FR 66353, October 26, 2011.
    c. The petitioners cited Michelin North America, Grant of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance. See 74 FR 10805, March
12, 2009.
    Pirelli highlighted that in the Michelin case, the tire was marked
on one sidewall as having a maximum permissible inflation pressure of
``300 kPa,'' while the other sidewall was marked ``350 kPa.'' In
concluding that this noncompliance was inconsequential to safety, NHTSA
cited the following justifications:

    ``Since the load that is marked on both sides of the tire (i.e.,
750 KG (1653 lb.)) is correct; the recommended inflation pressure
(240 kPa (35 PSI)) is well below both the correct tire pressure of
300 kPa (44 PSI), and the incorrectly labeled tire pressure of 350
kPa (51 PSI); and, in any event, the tire was manufactured to safely
accommodate a pressure of 350 kPa (51 PSI), the tire cannot be
inadvertently overloaded.''

    2. DAG-Mercedes-Benz stated that the subject tires meet or exceed
all performance and safety requirements for tires with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa, and the mislabeling has no
effect whatsoever on their safety or performance. DAG-Mercedes-Benz
asserted the following:
    a. The subject tires were designed and engineered as tires with a
maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa, and they meet or
exceed all of the performance requirements for such tires.
Specifically, the tires meet the applicable specifications contained in
FMVSS No. 139 for tire dimensions under paragraph S6.1, the high-speed
performance test under paragraph S6.2, the tire endurance test under
paragraph S6.3, the low inflation pressure test under paragraph S6.4,
and the bead unseating test applicable under paragraph S6.6 (which
references FMVSS No. 109, paragraph S5.2). These tires also meet the
tire strength test specified for tires with a maximum inflation
pressure of 350 kPa, in accordance with paragraph S6.5 of

FMVSS No. 139 (which references FMVSS No. 109, paragraph S5.3).
    b. Since the subject tires were labeled as having a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 340 kPa rather than 350 kPa, the
tires would be subject to a different strength test specification under
FMVSS No. 139 (which references FMVSS No. 109, paragraph S5.3), which
they were not meant to satisfy.
    c. The mislabeling of the subject tires has no effect on vehicle
safety as compared to tires that are properly and correctly labeled
with a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa. The error
does not present any risk of over-inflation since the design maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa is higher than the labeled
inflation pressure of 340 kPa. Additionally, there is no risk of tire
under inflation, since the calculated load-carrying capacity of the
tire at 340 kPa is met and exceeded by the design for 350 kPa.
    d. All of the tire load-carrying information labeled on the subject
tires is correct and, in fact, that information understates the load-
carrying capacity of the tires. Since the tires were designed to have a
maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa, according to the
European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization (ETRTO) guidelines, these
tires have a load-carrying capacity that is higher by 15 to 20 kg.
    e. The mislabeling does not cause any safety problems, such as
increasing the probability of tire failure, if the tires were inflated
to 350 kPa under a load of 750kg, and it is not likely to result in
unsafe use of the tires. In a similar case, NHTSA granted an
inconsequentiality petition with respect to two tires, one of which was
mislabeled as having a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350
kPa instead of 300 kPa, and the other tire was mislabeled as having a
maximum permissible inflation pressure of 300 kPa instead of 350
kPa.\3\ As NHTSA has acknowledged, ``the choice of the maximum
inflation pressure level then becomes the choice of the tire
manufacturer, as long as it is in compliance with the established
values under FMVSS No. 139 paragraph S5.5.4.'' \4\ Both 340 and 350
maximum inflation pressure levels are acceptable choices for this tire
under paragraph S5.5.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, Grant of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 80 FR 31092, June 1,
2015.
    \4\ See Michelin North America, Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 74 FR 10805, March 12, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    f. NHTSA has previously stated that it has retained the requirement
that tires be marked with the maximum permissible inflation pressure
only ``as an aid in preventing over-inflation,'' for which there is no
risk in this case.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Michelin North America, Inc., Grant of Application for
Decision that Noncompliance is Inconsequential to Motor Vehicle
Safety; 70 FR 10161, March 2, 2005 (concluding that ``the
mislabeling issue, in this case, will in no way contribute to the
risk of over-inflation because the value actually marked is lower
than the value required by the regulations'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Pirelli stated that the different tire strength test criteria
for tires marked with a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 340
kPa vs. 350 kPa do not have any real-world safety relevance in this
case.
    a. Since these tires are labeled as having a maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 340 kPa rather than 350 kPa, the tires would be
subject to a different strength test criteria under FMVSS No. 109/139,
which they were not meant to satisfy. Due to this labeling error, the
appropriate specification to be applied should be that which is
applicable to the tire as designed, with a maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 350 kPa.
    b. FMVSS No. 139, paragraph S6.5 incorporates the tire strength
test requirements of FMVSS No. 109, paragraph S5.3. Specifically, under
the tire strength test in paragraph S5.3 of FMVSS No. 109 (which is
cross-referenced in paragraph S6.5 of FMVSS No. 139), tires with a
maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa should be tested at
180 kPa, while tires with a maximum pressure of 340 kPa should be
tested at 220 kPa.\6\ When tested at these pressures using the test
procedures specified in FMVSS No. 109, a tire with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa must have a minimum breaking
energy of 294 joules, while a tire with a maximum permissible inflation
pressure of 340 kPa must have a minimum breaking energy of 588 joules.
The subject tires have shown a breaking energy of 455 joules, which far
exceeds the requirements for tires marked with a maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 350 kPa (i.e., 54.7% above the required
threshold).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See FMVSS No. 109 New pneumatic and certain specialty tires;
Table II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. The subject tires were developed for a specific DAG-Mercedes-
Benz application and, accordingly, they were subject to and fulfilled a
very stringent DAG-Mercedes-Benz homologation process, including all
customer requirements related to performance, quality and safety
standards.
    d. With specific reference to the DAG-Mercedes-Benz applications,
the table below shows the following information for each of the
vehicles for which the tires were fitted as original equipment:
     a summary of vehicle weights under ``Normal Load'' and
``Maximum Load'' operating conditions;
     the recommended tire inflation pressures for ``Normal
Load'' and ``Maximum Load'' operating conditions reported on each
vehicle's placard;
     minimum inflation pressures corresponding to each
vehicle's load condition according to the Tire and Rim Association
standard; and
     the minimum inflation pressures corresponding to each load
condition according to the ETRTO standard (as shown at page 8 of
Pirelli's petition \7\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The petition is available in the docket at NHTSA-2019-0038-
0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    e. Either considering the Tire and Rim Association or the ETRTO
standard for the maximum tire load-carrying capacity calculation, a
tire with a load index of 96 ``Standard Load'' would be an appropriate
fitment for each of the identified vehicles and would be more than
sufficient to carry the vehicles' load both under ``Normal Load'' and
``Maximum Load'' conditions. In other words, under the above-reported
operating conditions, an ``Extra Load'' tire with a load index of 100
is not necessary to carry the vehicles' loads.
    f. Considering a tire with a load index of 96 ``Standard Load,''
and marked with a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa,
based on the above consideration, for each of the above-mentioned
vehicles, the referenced strength test limit, and testing conditions
are sufficient to achieve all strength test-related standards.
    g. The subject tires are self-supporting ``run flat'' tires
designed with a reinforcing element in the sidewall that carries the
vehicle load under zero (0) kPa inflation pressure operating
conditions, thereby avoiding the complete deflection of the tire
sidewall which may lead to the tire rim roll-off. Thus, even in the
event of a failure of the type that the tire strength test was
originally intended to address (i.e., road hazards), the subject tires'
run flat design enables the vehicle to maintain stability, drivability,
and control. Accordingly, there are no safety consequences in the event
of such a failure.
    h. The safety of the subject tires has been confirmed through
rigorous testing under different testing methods focused to measure
resistance to accidental impact damage and tire durability.
    Neither petitioner is aware of any warranty claims, field reports,
customer complaints, legal claims, or any

incidents or injuries related to the original or the replacement tires.

VI. Public Comment

    NHTSA received one comment from the public.\8\ The commenter posted
anonymously in opposition to NHTSA granting the subject petitions. The
commenter argued that if the petitioners' petitions were to be granted,
it would protect the manufacturers rather than consumers. The commenter
further asserted that most vehicle owners do not know how to properly
check and maintain the air pressure in their tires or understand how
damaging and dangerous under-inflated tires have the potential to be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2019-0038-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. NHTSA's Analysis

A. General Principles

    An important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality is
the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise protect.\9\ NHTSA also does not
consider the absence of complaints or injuries to show that the issue
is inconsequential to safety. ``Most importantly, the absence of a
complaint does not mean there have not been any safety issues, nor does
it mean that there will not be safety issues in the future.'' \10\
``[T]he fact that in past reported cases good luck and swift reaction
have prevented many serious injuries does not mean that good luck will
continue to work.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
    \10\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12,
2016).
    \11\ United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C.
Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk when it
``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire,
and where there is no dispute that at least some such hazards, in
this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in the
future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. NHTSA's Response to the Petitioners' Petitions

    NHTSA considered several factors specific to these petitions and
disagrees that mismarking the maximum permissible inflation pressure is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    Because the subject tires were marked with a maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 340 kPa, these tires are required to meet the
strength test conditions specified under paragraph S6.5, Tire Strength,
of FMVSS No. 139, which points to the requirements documented in
paragraph S5.3 of FMVSS No. 109. Based on Pirelli's testing and the
sidewall picture Pirelli submitted to the Agency on July 11, 2019, the
tire failed to meet the applicable requirement since it did not reach
the minimum energy levels specified in the FMVSS standard.
Specifically, a tire labeled with a maximum permissible inflation
pressure of 340 kPa must meet or exceed a strength test requirement of
588 joules. Based on the information provided by Pirelli, the subject
tires obtained energy levels up to 486.4 joules, which is significantly
below the minimum requirement of 588 joules. NHTSA's regulations have
different energy level requirements because a tire with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 340 kPa is an ``Extra Load'' tire,
whereas a tire with a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa
is a ``Standard Load'' tire.
    Furthermore, based on the picture and information Pirelli provided
to the Agency on July 11, 2019,\12\ NHTSA does not believe that the
only incorrect marking on the tire was the labeling of a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 340 kPa, as Pirelli described in its
petition. The tire was also incorrectly marked as an ``Extra Load''
tire and the maximum load marked on the subject tires is 800 kg (1764
lbs.). This information correlates to a tire designed and manufactured
as a tire having an inflation pressure of 340 kPa according to the 2019
edition of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book.\13\ Therefore, the
tire appears to be marked in multiple ways that would indicate to users
that it is an ``Extra Load'' tire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2019-0038-0005.
    \13\ According to the Tire and Rim Association Year Book, 2019
edition, the maximum loading capacity for a tire marked 350 kPa is
710 kg (1565 lbs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tires labeled with either a maximum permissible inflation pressure
of 340 kPa or 350 kPa are both acceptable choices under FMVSS No. 139,
S5.5.4. However, the 340 kPa labeling indicates that a tire can support
a load that is 199 lbs. per tire more than a tire marked with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa. Because the subject tires
were engineered and manufactured to support the maximum load carrying
capacity for a tire marked with a maximum permissible inflation
pressure of 350 kPa, labeling the subject tires with an inflation
pressure of 340 kPa creates the risk that the tires will be overloaded.
For example, a consumer relying on the incorrect labeling may believe
an overload condition of as much as 796 lbs. is safe--even though that
overload poses a risk to motor vehicle safety.
    The Michelin petition \14\ for inconsequential noncompliance cited
by the petitioners does not support the petitioners' claims. In the
Michelin case, the Agency concluded that the incorrect labeling on the
tire would not lead to the tire being inadvertently overloaded since
the load on both sidewalls of the tire understates its capability. In
contrast, the petitioners' petitions concern tires that were marked
with information that would likely result in misuse of the tires,
including the risk of overloading the tires. Overloading can lead to
tire failure and resulting loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk
of a crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Michelin North America, Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 74 FR 10805, March 12, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Continental Tire the Americas, LLC's petition for
inconsequential noncompliance,\15\ which the petitioners cited does not
support the petitioners' claims. In that petition, the tires in
question were labeled with both 300 kPa and 350 kPa. Tires having both
of these labels are tested using the same test inflation pressures and
must comply with the same energy levels since both pressures are in
reference to a ``Standard Load'' tire. In the petitioners' case, the
tires are marked as ``Extra Load'' tires instead of ``Standard Load''
tires--thus distinguishing the petitioners' labeling error from the
Continental Tire the Americas, LLC's petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, Grant of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 83 FR 36668, July 30,
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Tireco Inc. petition \16\ the maximum permissible inflation
pressures in kPa and PSI were reversed (i.e., the kPa number was
labeled as PSI and the PSI number was labeled as kPa). The Agency
concluded the incorrect labeling of the tire inflation information will
not have any consequential effect on motor vehicle safety because it is
unlikely a vehicle owner would inflate the tires to the incorrectly
labeled pressure because it was so obviously incorrect. Whereas, with
respect to the petitioners' error, the incorrect markings on the
subject tires are not obviously incorrect, and therefore, are likely to
be

relied upon by vehicle owners in a way that poses a risk to motor
vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Tireco, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 76 FR 66353, October 26, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners state that they do not foresee any safety issues
due to consumers over-inflating the tires since a maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 350 kPa is a higher pressure than the 340 kPa
that is erroneously labeled on the subject tires--since the tires were
engineered to sustain the higher of the two inflation pressures. NHTSA
agrees with the petitioners on this one limited point; however,
agreement on this one limited point does not affect NHTSA's ultimate
decision to deny the petitions.
    According to the Tire and Rim Association Year Book (2019), a tire
for this size designation should have a load index of 96. The words
``Extra Load'' emphasizes that the tire has been marked or labeled with
a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 340 kPa which corresponds
to a load index of 100. Based on the sidewall pictures, the subject
tires were also mistakenly labeled with a load index of 100, which
pertains to an ``Extra Load'' tire or a tire with a maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 340 kPa. For these reasons, the Agency believes
that the tire was not correctly marked with respect to the load index
labeling information and, therefore, misleads the public and vehicle
owners as to the appropriate usage of the tire.
    Even though the subject tires meet rigorous testing under the FMVSS
and other methods employed by DAG-Mercedes-Benz, like the curb test,
maximum pressure resistance (static blow out test), rim roll-off test,
fatigue test, run-flat mileage test, rapid loss of inflation and lane
change test, integrity tests, etc., that does not negate the fact that
these tires must also meet the strength test according to FMVSS No.
139, section S6.5.1, Tire Strength Test for Passenger Car Tires.
Furthermore, Pirelli seems to recognize that the subject tires fail to
meet the minimum requirements under the FMVSS for a tire labeled with a
maximum permissible inflation pressure of 340 kPa.
    Finally, for a tire with a load index of 100, the energy level--as
referenced in FMVSS No. 109--is 588 joules on Table I-C Radial Ply
Tires for ``Extra Load'' tires. The subject tires failed to meet this
required energy level, pursuant to FMVSS No. 139/FMVSS No. 109.
    For the above-stated reasons, the Agency finds that the subject
noncompliance is consequential to motor vehicle safety.

VIII. NHTSA's Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has determined that DAG-
Mercedes-Benz and Pirelli have not met their burden of persuasion that
the subject FMVSS No. 139 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. Accordingly, DAG-Mercedes-Benz's and Pirelli's
petitions are hereby denied, and DAG-Mercedes-Benz and Pirelli are
consequently obligated to provide notification of and free 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.)

Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022-26769 Filed 12-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P