Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Notices 11083 

300 West Washington Street, 

Greensboro, North Carolina. 

This notice applies to all Federal 

agency decisions as of the issuance date 

of this notice and all laws under which 

such actions were taken, including but 

not limited to: 

1. General: National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321–

4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 

U.S.C. 109]. 

2. Air: Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401–

7671(q)]. 

3. Land: Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act of 

1966 [49 U.S.C. 303]; Landscaping and 

Scenic Enhancement (Wildflowers) [23 

U.S.C. 319]. 

4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act 

[16 U.S.C. 1531–1544 and Section 

1536], Marine Mammal Protection Act 

[16 U.S.C. 1361], Anadromous Fish 

Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 757(a)–

757(g)], Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act [16 U.S.C. 661–667(d)], Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act [16 U.S.C. 703–712], 

Magnuson-Stevenson Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act of 

1976, as amended [16 U.S.C. 1801 et 

seq.]. 

5. Historic and Cultural Resources: 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

[16 U.S.C. 470(f) et seq.]; Archeological 

Resources Protection Act of 1977 [16 

U.S.C. 470(aa)–11]; Archeological and 

Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 

469–469(c)]; Native American Grave 

Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA) [25 U.S.C. 3001–3013]. 

6. Social and Economic: Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)–

2000(d)(1)]; American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act [42 U.S.C. 1996]; Farmland 

Protection Policy Act (FPPA) [7 U.S.C. 

4201–4209]. 

7. Wetlands and Water Resources: 

Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(LWCF) [16 U.S.C. 4601–4604]; Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) [42 U.S.C. 

300(f)–300(j)(6)]; Wild and Scenic 

Rivers [16 U.S.C. 1271–1287]; 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act [16 

U.S.C. 3921, 3931]; TEA–21 Wetlands 

Mitigation [23 U.S.C. 103(b)(6)(m), 

133(b)(11)]; Flood Disaster Protection 

Act [42 U.S.C. 4001–4128]. 

8. Hazardous Materials: 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) [42 U.S.C. 9601–9675]; 

Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA); 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA) [42 U.S.C. 6901–6992(k)]. 

9. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 

Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 

Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898, 

Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low Income 

Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and 

Enhancement of Cultural Resources; 

E.O. 13007 Indian Sacred Sites; E.O. 

13287 Preserve America; E.O. 13175 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 11514 

Protection and Enhancement of 

Environmental Quality; E.O. 13112 

Invasive Species. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning 

and Construction. The regulations 

implementing Executive Order 12372 

regarding intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities apply to this 

program.) 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(I)(1). 

Issued on: February 28, 2007. 

Clarence W. Coleman, 

Operations Engineer, Raleigh, North Carolina. 

[FR Doc. 07–1143 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1143–RY–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NTHSA–2007–27505] 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards: New Pneumatic Tires for 

Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, DoT. 

ACTION: Denial of petition for 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document responds to a 

petition for rulemaking regarding 

Federal motor vehicle safety standard 

(FMVSS) No. 119, Pneumatic Tires for 

Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. 

Pacific Coast Retreaders (PCR), a 

distributor of new truck tires that are 

manufactured in China, petitioned the 

agency on February 1, 2006, to amend 

FMVSS No. 119, paragraph S5.1, Tire 

and rim matching information (b). 

Specifically, PCR petitioned the agency 

to accept tire load rating data for two 

bias ply truck tire sizes, 10–20 and 11–

22.5, from the Chinese tire 

standardization organization Guo Biao 

9744–1997 (GB 9744). NHTSA has 

determined that this petition is moot 

with regard to the 10–20 size tires 

because the maximum load rating 

labeled on these tires, in the single and 

dual wheel configurations, meets the 

requirements of FMVSS No. 119. With 

regard to the 11–22.5 size tires, the 

agency denies the request by the 

petitioner that FMVSS No. 119, 

paragraph S5.1(b) be amended to 

include the GB 9744 maximum load 

rating for this single tire size. The 

agency does not consider amending the 

standard to include the specifications of 

a tire standardization organization for 

one tire size. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Samuel Daniel, Office of Crash 

Avoidance Standards, NVS–122, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590, telephone 

(202) 366–4921, facsimile (202) 366–

7002, electronic mail 

sam.daniel@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

PCR, a distributor of new truck tires 

manufactured in China, petitioned the 

agency on February 1, 2006, to accept 

the Chinese tire marking standards for 

two bias ply truck tire sizes, 10–20 and 

11–22.5. The petitioner stated that the 

requirements in FMVSS No. 119, 

paragraph S5.1(b) are outdated and ‘‘are 

well behind the changes in the 

intermodal transportation industry.’’

The petitioner further stated that the 

Chinese tire marking standards from GB 

9744 are not included in the list of 

marking standards referenced by 

NHTSA in FMVSS No. 119. However, 

PCR did not explicitly request that the 

GB 9744 publication be added to 

FMVSS No. 119. 

The petitioner provided a copy of a 

page from the Chinese GB 9744 

publication with information on the tire 

load limits at various cold inflation 

pressures, similar to a page of truck tire 

load-pressure values from the 

publications listed in paragraph S5.1(b) 

of FMVSS No. 119. The publications 

that are already listed are as follows: 

Tire and Rim Association (TRA); 

European Tyre and Rim Technical 

Organization (ETRTO); Japan 

Automobile Tyre Manufacturers 

Association, Inc. (JATMA); Deutsche 

Industrie Norm; British Standards 

Institution; Scandinavian Tire and Rim 

Organization (STRO); and the Tyre and 

Rim Association of Australia. The table 

on the page from the GB 9744 

publication specifies a maximum load 

rating of 2,160 kg (4,752 pounds) for the 

10–20 size tire load range F (12 plyrated) in the dual wheel (four tires per 

axle) configuration. However, the Tire 

and Rim Association (TRA), which is 

the United States voluntary standards 

organization, in its 2005 Year Book 

specifies a maximum load rating of 

2,180 kg (4,805 pounds) for the same 

tire size and configuration. The TRA 

publication also lists the value of the 

maximum load rating for the 11–22.5 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
11084 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Notices 

size tire at 2,180 kg (4,805 pounds) for 

the load range F tires mounted on 15 

degree drop center rims, whereas the GB 

9744 document lists the value of the 

maximum load rating at 2,160 kg (4,752 

pounds), according to the petitioner, or 

20 kg pounds less than the TRA value. 

The petition states that the two 

subject tire sizes are used in the 

intermodal transportation industry on 

dual axle, dual wheel (8 tires and rims) 

trailers and container chassis with a 

total load rating for the two axles of 

15,455 kg (34,000 pounds). Based on the 

maximum tire load rating, the TRA 

maximum load capacity for eight 10–20 

or 11–22.5 bias ply, load range F tires 

is 17,436 kg (38,440 pounds) and the 

maximum load capacity for eight similar 

tires based on the GB 9744 data 

obtained from the petitioner is 17,280 kg 

(38,016 pounds). Both load capacities 

are, according to the petitioner, well 

above the maximum allowable load 

limit (34,000 pounds) for the intermodal 

trailers and container chassis. The 

petitioner further stated that the small 

difference in maximum load rating 

between the GB 9744 and the TRA 

specifications is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. 

FMVSS No. 119 establishes the safety 

performance requirements for tires used 

on vehicles other than passenger cars. 

The requirements for tire endurance, 

strength, high speed performance, 

treadwear indicators, and tire markings 

are specified in paragraph S6 of the 

standard and are tested in accordance 

with the conditions and procedures 

specified in paragraph S7. 

Paragraph S5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 119 

lists the publications that may be used 

by tire manufacturers for rim matching, 

tire size, and maximum tire load rating 

with corresponding inflation pressure. 

Paragraph S6.6, Maximum load rating, 

requires that the maximum load rating 

labeled on a tire in accordance with 

paragraph S6.5, Tire markings, meet or 

exceed the lowest load rating value 

specified in the publications listed in 

Section 5.1(b) for that tire size. 

B. Discussion 

FMVSS No. 119 allows tire 

manufacturers to use any one of the 

seven publications in S5.1(b) to obtain 

rim, and tire load and inflation pressure 

information for the labeling 

requirements of paragraph S6.5. 

The petitioner provided one page of 

the GB 9744 publication, which 

included one of the two bias ply tire 

sizes discussed in the petition. The 

agency does not recognize specifications 

for one or two tire sizes from a technical 

reference year book, but would consider 

recognition of an entire standardization 

publication. 

If the organization that publishes GB 

9744 would like its publication to be 

considered for inclusion in the list of 

publications in FMVSS No. 119, 

paragraph S5.1(b), that organization is 

invited to submit information to 

NHTSA. The type of information 

contained in these publications includes 

its membership, objectives, and the 

organizations that provide technical 

support, in addition to its tire and rim 

specifications. PCR submitted a petition 

for rulemaking requesting that GB 9744 

maximum tire load ratings for two tire 

sizes be accepted by NHTSA. However, 

PCR did not indicate whether it had any 

communication with the organization 

that publishes GB 9744 prior to 

submitting the petition. NHTSA does 

not consider recognizing tire 

standardization organizations upon the 

request of tire distributors. 

The petitioner believes that the 

agency is accepting tire markings 

(paragraph S6.5, Tire markings) from 

sources that are not on the list in 

paragraph S5.1(b). The agency does not 

accept tire maximum load ratings that 

do not comply with the requirements in 

paragraph S6.6, which state that the 

maximum load rating for a particular 

tire size must be equal to or greater than 

the lowest maximum load rating for that 

tire size published in the list of 

technical reference year books in 

paragraph S5.1(b). 

C. Agency Determination 

After review of the tire specifications 

from the sources listed in FMVSS No. 

119, the Scandinavian Tire and Rim 

Technical Organization publication has 

the lowest values for the maximum load 

rating of the 10–20 size tire with 2,305 

kg (5,071 pounds) for the single 

application rating and 2,120 kg (4,664 

pounds) for the dual rating. The GB 

9744 values for the maximum load 

rating for 10–20 bias ply tire, load range 

F, 2,465 kg (5,434 pounds) for the single 

rating and 2,160 kg (4,752 pounds) for 

the dual rating, are greater than the 

values specified in the Scandinavian 

Tire and Rim Technical Organization 

publication for that size tire. Tire 

manufacturers may label the 10–20 size 

tires with the GB 9744 value for the 

rated maximum load without violating 

the requirements of FMVSS No. 119, 

S6.6 Maximum load rating. Therefore, 

PCR’s petition is moot with regard to the 

10–20 tire size. 

The Tire and Rim Association value 

for maximum load rating is the lowest 

value for 11–22.5 size tires 2,180 kg 

(4,805 pounds) specified in the 

publications listed in paragraph S5.1(b) 

of FMVSS No. 119. The documents 

forwarded to the agency by the 

petitioner do not include maximum 

load data for the 11–22.5 tire size, but 

NHTSA was informed by the petitioner 

that the 11–22.5 tire size has the same 

maximum load rating as the 10–20 tire 

size. Therefore, labeling an 11–22.5 size 

tire with the GB 9744 value for 

maximum load rating would not comply 

with the standard as currently written. 

The PCR petition with respect to the 

11–22.5 size tires is denied because the 

agency does not consider adding 

specifications for a single tire size to the 

accepted reference documents in 

paragraph S5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 119. 

Issued: March 6, 2007. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. E7–4301 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration Office of 

Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of 

Delays in Processing of Special Permit 

Applications 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: List of Applications Delayed 

more than 180 days. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5117(c), 

PHMSA is publishing the following list 

of special permit applications that have 

been in process for 180 days or more. 

The reason(s) for delay and the expected 

completion date for action on each 

application is provided in association 

with each identified application. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann 

Mazzullo, Office of Hazardous Materials 

Special Permits and Approvals, Pipeline 

and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001, (202) 

366–4535. 

Key to ‘‘Reason for Delay’’

1. Awaiting additional information 

from applicant. 

2. Extensive public comment under 

review. 

3. Application is technically complex 

and is of significant impact or 

precedent-setting and requires extensive 

analysis. 

4. Staff review delayed by other 

priority issues or volume special permit 

applications. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES