75222 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 232 / Friday, December 1, 2000 / Proposed Rules

FCC Reference Center 445 12th Street,

SW., Washington, DC. The complete

text of this decision may also be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Services, Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231

20th Street, NW., Washington, DC

20036.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Television, Digital television

broadcasting.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Federal Communications

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR

part 73 as follows:

PART 73—TELEVISION BROADCAST

SERVICES

1. The authority citation for part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and

336.

§ 73.622 [Amended]

2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of

Digital Television Allotments under

Florida is amended by removing DTV

Channel 25 and adding DTV Channel 50

at Fort Walton Beach.

Federal Communications Commission

Barbara A. Kreisman,

Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00–30688 Filed 11–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–2570; MM Docket No. 00–228, RM–

9991]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Linden,

White Oak, Lufkin, Corrigan, Mount

Enterprise, and Pineland, TX and

Zwolle, LA

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document requests

comments on a petition filed by OARA,

Inc. proposing the reallotment of

Channel 257C2 from Linden, Texas, to

White Oak, Texas, as that community’s

first local service. The coordinates for

Channel 257C2 at White Oak are 32–30–

32 and 94–50–41. To accommodate the

allotment at White Oak, we shall also

propose to substitute Channel 261C2 for

Channel 257C2 at Lufkin, Texas, and

modifiy the license for Station KUEZ at

coordinates 31–24–28 and 94–45–53;

substitute Channel 257A for vacant

Channel 261A at Corrigan, Texas, at

coordinates 30–59–47 and 94–49–36;

reallot Channel 260A from Mount

Enterprise, Texas to Zwolle, Louisiana,

at coordinates 31–37–53 and 93–38–39;

and allot Channel 256A at Pineland,

Texas at coordinates 31–08–48 and 93–

56–53.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before January 2, 2000, and reply

comments on or before January 17,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to

filing comments with the FCC,

interested parties should serve the

petitioner’s counsel, as follows: Ann

Bavender, Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth,

P.L.C., 1300 N. 17th Street, 11th Floor,

Arlington, Virginia 22209.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

00–228, adopted November 1, 2000, and

released November 9, 2000. The full text

of this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the

Commission’s Reference Center 445

Twelfth Street, SW, Washington, DC

20554. The complete text of this

decision may also be purchased from

the Commission’s copy contractors,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800,

facsimile (202) 857–3805.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contact.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Federal Communications

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR

part 73 as follows:

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST

SERVICES

1. The authority citation for part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

§ 73.202 [Amended]

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under Texas, is amended by

removing Linden, Channel 257C2 and

adding White Oak, Channel 257C2, by

removing Channel 257C2 at Lufkin and

adding Channel 261C2 at Lufkin, by

removing Channel 261A at Corrigan and

adding Channel 257A at Corrigan, by

removing Channel 260A and Mount

Enterprise, and by adding Pineland,

Channel 256A.

3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under Louisiana, is

amended by adding Zwolle, Channel

260A.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00–30689 Filed 11–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Parts 567, 571, 574 and 575

[Docket No. NHTSA–00–8296]

RIN 2127–AI32

Certification; Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standards; Tire Identification

and Recordkeeping; Consumer

Information Regulations

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANPRM).

SUMMARY: Section 11 of the recently

enacted Transportation Recall

Enhancement, Accountability, and

Documentation (TREAD) Act requires

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 232 / Friday, December 1, 2000 / Proposed Rules 75223

1The agency initially addressed the problem of

labeling tires whose maximum section width is

close to the bead in a 1985 rulemaking regarding

tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. (49 FR

37816; September 26, 1984 and 50 FR 10773; March

18, 1985). That rulemaking amended 49 CFR part

574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping (49 CFR

574.4) and FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires

for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49

CFR 571.119) to permit placing markings at a

different location in order to permit the

introduction of a new tire concept for vehicles other

than passenger cars where the tire’s maximum

section width is at the bead. In particular, Figure

1 of part 574 was amended to specify the

requirements for the label’s position if a tire’s

maximum section width falls within one-fourth of

the distance from the bead to the tire shoulder. In

that case, a marking must appear between the bead

and a point one-half the distance from the bead to

the shoulder of the tire. Amending part 574 had the

practical effect of applying the new requirement to

paragraphs S4.3.1 and S4.3.2 of FMVSS No. 109,

given that these provisions state that the tires must

be labeled ‘‘in the manner specified in part 574.’’

A subsequent rulemaking (55 FR 41190; October 10,

1990) amended FMVSS No. 109 to incorporate this

provision explicitly.

the Secretary of Transportation to

initiate rulemaking to improve the

labeling of tires to assist consumers in

identifying tires that may be the subject

of a safety recall. The TREAD Act also

provides that the Secretary may take

whatever additional action is

appropriate to ensure that the public is

aware of the importance of observing

motor vehicle tire load limits and

maintaining proper tire inflation levels

for the safe operation of a motor vehicle.

Pursuant to that Act, the agency is

considering amendments to its

regulations to improve the quality and

usefulness of tire information and its

availability and understandability to

consumers. To aid in this effort, the

agency is seeking responses from the

public to questions relating to such

matters as tire identification number

content, readability and location,

loading, plies and cord material, tread

wear indicators, Uniform Tire Quality

Grading Standards, speed ratings, runflat and extended mobility tires, tire

inflation pressure, and dissemination of

tire safety information.

DATES: You should submit your written

comments so that they are received by

January 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your

comments in writing to: Docket

Management, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590. Alternatively, you may submit

your comments electronically by logging

onto the Docket Management System

(DMS) website at http://dms.dot.gov.

Click on ‘‘Help & Information’’ or

‘‘Help/Info’’ to view instructions for

filing your comments electronically.

Regardless of how you submit your

comments, you should mention the

docket number of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical and policy issues: Mr. George

Soodoo, Office of Crash Avoidance

Standards, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

Telephone: (202) 366–2720. Fax: (202)

366–4329. Joseph Scott, Office of Crash

Avoidance Standards, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366–2720.

Fax: (202) 366–4329.

For legal issues: Nancy Bell, Attorney

Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel,

NCC–20, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

Telephone: (202) 366–2992. Fax: (202)

366–3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may

read the materials placed in the docket

for this notice (e.g., the comments

submitted in response to this notice by

other interested persons) by going to the

DMS at the street address given above

under ADDRESSES. The hours of the DMS

are indicated above in the same

location.

You may also read the materials on

the Internet. To do so, take the following

steps:

(1) Go to the Web page of the

Department of Transportation DMS

(http://dms.dot.gov/).

(2) On that page, click on ‘‘search’’

near the top of the page or scroll down

to the words ‘‘Search the DMS Web’’

and click on them.

(3) On the next page (http://

dms.dot.gov/search/), scroll down to

‘‘Docket Number’’ and type in the fourdigit docket number shown in the title

at the beginning of this notice. After

typing the docket number, click on

‘‘search.’’

(4) On the next page (‘‘Docket

Summary Information’’), which contains

docket summary information for the

materials in the docket you selected,

scroll down to ‘‘search results’’ and

click on the desired materials. You may

download the materials.

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Tire Information Labeling/Marking

A. Generally

B. Tire Identification Number (TIN)

1. Current Requirements

2. 1980 NPRM

3. 1999 Final Rule

C. Other Labeling

III. Questions for Public Comment

IV. Regulatory Analyses

I. Background

The Transportation Recall

Enhancement, Accountability, and

Documentation (TREAD) Act, Pub. L.

106–414, requires the agency to address

numerous matters through rulemaking.

One of these matters, set forth in section

11 of the Act, is the improvement of the

labeling of tires required by section

30123 of title 49, United States Code, to

assist consumers in identifying tires that

may be the subject of a recall. Section

11 provides that the agency must

initiate a rulemaking proceeding for that

purpose within 30 days after the

enactment of the Act and must complete

it not later than June 1, 2002.

Additionally, that section provides

that the agency may take whatever

additional action it deems appropriate

to ensure that the public is aware of the

importance of observing motor vehicle

tire load limits and maintaining proper

tire inflation levels for the safe

operation of a motor vehicle. Section 11

states that such additional action may,

for example, include a requirement that

the manufacturer of motor vehicles

provide the purchasers of the motor

vehicles information on appropriate tire

inflation levels and load limits if the

agency determines that requiring such

manufacturers to provide that

information is the most appropriate way

that information can be provided.

II. Tire Information Labeling/Marking

A. Generally

NHTSA’s existing labeling

requirements for new passenger car tires

are set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109, New

Pneumatic Tires—Passenger Cars (49

CFR 571.109). Specifically, paragraph

S4.3 of FMVSS No. 109 sets forth

information labeling requirements for

tires, including requirements regarding

the positioning of the information on

the sidewall to ensure that it is readily

visible and to minimize the possibility

that it will be scuffed off if the sidewall

hits a curb or similar object. It provides

that the information listed in paragraphs

S4.3 (a) through (e) (e.g., number of

plies and maximum permissible

inflation pressure) must appear, on at

least one sidewall, in an area between

the maximum section width and the

bead of the tire, unless the maximum

section width of the tire falls between

the bead and one-fourth of the distance

from the bead to the shoulder of the tire.

For tires for which the maximum

section width falls in that area, all

required labeling must be located

between the bead and a point one-half

the distance from the bead to the

shoulder of the tire.1 Paragraphs S4.3.1

and S4.3.2 provide more extensive

location requirements for other

information (e.g., the DOT certification

and the name of the manufacturer or

75224 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 232 / Friday, December 1, 2000 / Proposed Rules

2The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety

Act of 1966, Pub. L. 89–563, was originally codified

at 15 U.S.C. 1581, et seq. However, it was recodified

in 1995 and is now found at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et

seq.

3 In the preambles to the final rules establishing

the location requirements for the safety information

to be molded on the sidewall of the tires in FMVSS

Nos. 109 and 119, the agency explained that it was

establishing location requirements for two reasons.

First, the agency stated that the labeling on

retreaded tires should use original casing labeling

a much as possible, since this reduces the chances

of incorrect labeling. Accordingly, the agency

required that new tire labeling appear in an area

where it would not be buffed off the tire during

recapping and similar retreading (37 FR 23536;

November 4, 1972).

brand name and number assigned to the

manufacturer) to be placed on passenger

car tires. They provide that the labeling

must be done ‘‘in the manner specified

in Part 574.’’

NHTSA’s labeling requirement for

retreaded passenger car tires is set forth

in FMVSS No. 117, Pneumatic

Retreaded Tires (49 CFR 571.117).

FMVSS No. 117 requires that each new

retreaded tire have molded into its

sidewall information similar to that

required in FMVSS No. 109, plus the

words ‘‘bias belted’’ or ‘‘radial,’’ as

applicable. FMVSS No. 117 does not,

though, require that the name of the

manufacturer or brand name and

number assigned to the manufacturer be

placed on retreaded tires as is required

on new passenger car tires by FMVSS

No. 109.

NHTSA’s labeling requirements for

new tires for vehicles other than

passenger cars are set forth in FMVSS

No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for

Vehicles other than Passenger Cars (49

CFR 571.119). Paragraph S6.5 of FMVSS

No. 119 specifies that all tires for

vehicles other than passenger cars must

have certain markings on the sidewalls.

Among other things, these tires must

show the actual number of plies in the

tire, the composition of the ply cord

material (S6.5(f)), and a letter

designating the load range (S6.5(j)). S6.5

also provides that the designated

information must appear, on at least one

sidewall, in an area between the

maximum section width and bead of the

tire, unless the maximum section width

of the tire falls between the bead and

one-fourth of the distance from the bead

to the shoulder of the tire. For tires for

which the maximum section width falls

in that area, all required labeling must

be located between the bead and a point

one-half the distance from the bead to

the shoulder of the tire. Additionally,

S6.5(b) requires that each tire be marked

with the ‘‘tire identification number

required by part 574 of this chapter’’

and that this number ‘‘may be marked

on only one sidewall.’’

NHTSA’s labeling requirements for

new temporary spare non-pneumatic

tires for passenger cars are set forth in

FMVSS No. 129, New non-pneumatic

tires for passenger cars (49 CFR

571.129). Paragraph S.4 of FMVSS No.

129 specifies that each non-pneumatic

tire must have certain markings on the

sidewalls including the non-pneumatic

tire identification code (‘‘NPTIC’’), the

load rating, and the tire identification

number. These labeling requirements

also specify that the labeling

information must appear on both sides

of the tire, except that in the case of a

tire that has a particular side that must

always face outward, the information

must appear on the outward-facing side.

B. Tire Identification Number (TIN)

1. Current Requirements

Section 574.5 of Title 49, CFR, Tire

Identification Requirements, sets forth

the methods by which new tire

manufacturers and new tire brand name

owners must identify tires for use on

motor vehicles. The section also sets

forth the methods by which tire

retreaders and retreaded tire brand

name owners must identify tires for use

on motor vehicles. One purpose of these

requirements is to facilitate efforts by

tire manufacturers to notify purchasers

of defective or nonconforming tires and

by such purchasers to identify those

tires so that purchasers can take

appropriate action in the interest of

motor vehicle safety.

Specifically, section 574.5 requires

each new tire manufacturer and each

tire retreader to mold a TIN into or onto

the sidewall of each tire produced, in

the manner and location specified in the

section and as depicted in Figures 1 and

2 of that section. The TIN is composed

of four groups of symbols:

1. The first group represents the

manufacturer’s identification mark

assigned to such manufacturer by this

agency in accordance with section

574.6;

2. The second group represents the

tire size for new tires; for retreaded tires,

the second group represents the retread

matrix in which the tire was processed

or, if no matrix was used, a tire size

code;

3. The third group may, at the option

of the manufacturer, be used as a

descriptive code for identifying

significant characteristics of the tire. If

the tire is produced for a brand name

owner, the third grouping must identify

such brand name owner; and

4. The fourth group identifies the

week and year of manufacture. The first

two symbols identify the week, starting

with ‘‘01’’ to represent the first full

week of the calendar year; the second

two symbols represent the year. For

example, ‘‘2198’’ represents the 21st

week of 1998.

NHTSA originally proposed these

requirements in response to the May 22,

1970 amendments to the National

Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of

1966.2 Those amendments, among other

things, required manufacturers and

brand name owners of new and

retreaded motor vehicle tires to

maintain records of the names and

addresses of the first purchasers of tires

(other than dealers or distributors) in

order to facilitate notification of such

purchasers in the event tires were found

to be defective or not to comply with

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards.

The agency believed that an effective

method of tire identification was

essential to an effective defect or

noncompliance notification system for

tire owners. Accordingly, on July 23,

1970, NHTSA published a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (35 FR

11800) proposing to establish a tire

identification system to provide a means

to identify the manufacturer of the tire,

the date of manufacture, the tire size,

and, at the option of the manufacturer,

additional information to further

describe the type or other significant

characteristics of the tire. The agency

proposed a TIN composed of four

groups of symbols: the first group would

contain the manufacturer’s

identification mark which would be

assigned by NHTSA; the second group

would identify the tire size; the third

group would identify the date of

manufacture of the tire; and the fourth

group would be the manufacturer’s

optional description of the tire. The

symbols would be a minimum of 6

millimeters (mm) (1⁄4 inch) high and

would appear on both sidewalls of the

tire.

In a final rule published on November

10, 1970 (35 FR 17257), the agency

revised the requirements proposed in

the NPRM in response to the

suggestions of various commenters.

Specifically, NHTSA reversed the order

of the manufacturer’s optional

information and the date of

manufacture, so that the latter would

appear in the fourth grouping and the

manufacturer’s optional information

would appear in the third grouping.

NHTSA also stated that the TIN need

only appear on one sidewall in response

to concerns relating to worker safety,

and that the symbols need only be 4 mm

(5⁄32 inch) high on tires with a bead

diameter of less than 13 inches.3 Many

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 232 / Friday, December 1, 2000 / Proposed Rules 75225

Second, the agency wanted the safety information

to be located in an area where it would not be

scuffed off the tire if the tire were rubbed against

a curb or other object while parking, loading, etc.

By requiring that the safety information appear

between the widest part of the tire (the maximum

section width) and the bead, NHTSA believed that

the information would be less likely to be scuffed

off the tire, and thus would be available to the user

of the tire.

4From the responses to the orders, the agency

learned that of the 52 tire plants operated by the

respondents in this country, 46 of them operated

only five or six days a week. The remaining six

plants operated all week. In the case of those 46

plants, workers could safely and easily change the

number plates during one of the days when the

molds were nonoperational and at room

temperature. The practice of the manufacturers was

to change the number plates on these molds during

their nonoperational day. On that day, workers

could as easily change the number plates on the

upper mold as on the lower mold. Additionally, the

manufacturers operating seven days a week

indicated that workers could safely change the

number plates on operating upper molds in any of

several ways. One way would be to place insulated

blankets over the bottom molds. Another way

would be to mold the whitewall side of whitewall

tires on the lower mold so that the number plates

could be placed on the more readily accessible

upper molds.

5 It should be noted that many tire manufacturers

actually use symbols larger than 4 mm (5⁄32 inch)

for the date code.

commenters requested that the date

code be expressed in alpha-numeric

form in order to reduce the date symbols

to two digits. NHTSA declined to adopt

the alpha-numeric system because it

could be confusing to the public and

because retreaders may not be able to

easily determine the age of the casing to

be retreaded. In order to shorten the

stencil plate, however, NHTSA dropped

one of the two digits representing the

decade of manufacture, thereby

reducing the date of manufacture group

from four digits to three. The date of

manufacture grouping was later

expanded to four digits (64 FR 36807;

July 8, 1999).

2. 1980 NPRM

As stated above, the TIN originated

with the May 22, 1970 amendments to

the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle

Safety Act of 1966. Prior to that time,

there were no tire labeling requirements

in effect. Tire manufacturers simply

followed standard industry practices.

In the early 1980’s, NHTSA granted a

petition for rulemaking filed by the

Center for Auto Safety (the Center)

requesting that 49 CFR Part 574, Tire

Identification and Recordkeeping, be

amended to require that the TIN be

placed on the outside sidewall (i.e., the

sidewall visible when a tire is mounted

on a vehicle) of whitewall tires and on

both sides of blackwall tires. The Center

stated that the current tire industry

practice of placing the TIN on the inside

sidewall of whitewall tires and on only

one side of blackwall tires made it very

difficult for most motorists to find and

read the TINs on their tires once they

are mounted on vehicles.

Prior to publishing an NPRM (45 FR

82293; December 15, 1980), the agency

sent special orders to nine tire

manufacturers who together represented

84 percent of world tire production and

90 percent of domestic production of

tires for use in this country to gather

information on the feasibility and costs

of implementing the proposed

requirements. Among the questions in

the special orders were ones asking

whether the tire presses were operated

24 hours a day seven days a week and,

if so, what measures could be taken to

ensure that workers could safely change

the identification number plates in the

presses. (A tire press generally works

like a clam shell. The lower half of the

press remains in a fixed horizontal

position, while the upper half is

movable. The tire mold, which also has

upper and lower halves, fits inside the

press.) None of the respondents

suggested that changing the number

plates would present insurmountable

safety problems.4 Further, based on its

evaluation of these responses, NHTSA

determined that such a requirement

would impose costs of between $4.25

million and $5.9 million.

On April 9, 1981, the agency

published a notice of intent listing 17

actions that the agency said it intended

to take to reduce unnecessary regulatory

burdens upon the motor vehicle and

related manufacturing industries (46 FR

21203). Among them was terminating

rulemaking on the location of the TIN.

Subsequently, the agency terminated

the rulemaking (48 FR 19761; May 2,

1983). The agency stated that it was

taking that action because it was unable

to determine that the adoption of the

proposal would significantly contribute

to motor vehicle safety and because the

compliance costs would be $4.25 to $5.9

million. Although the agency

anticipated that the adoption of the

amendment would increase the

response to tire recall campaigns and

that ultimately the action would reduce

the chance of potentially unsafe tires

being used on public roads, it was not

able to provide a quantified estimate of

the benefits to be gained from the

proposed amendment. The data relied

upon by the agency in issuing the

proposal consisted solely of anecdotal

comments by 13 consumers on

difficulties they experienced in locating

TINs. These 13 comments were among

about 9,500 responses received by the

agency in response to a survey in which

it sent questionnaires to approximately

100,000 consumers. Thus, only 0.013

percent of the questionnaire recipients

and 0.14 percent of the respondents

reported this type of difficulty. Prior to

issuing the proposal, the agency did not

have any data or perform any analysis

regarding the extent to which the

proposed requirement would increase

the number of people who find the

identification number on their tires, the

number of those people who respond to

a tire recall, or the number of defective

or noncomplying tires that would be

removed from service. No additional

data regarding benefits were obtained by

the agency as a result of the comment

process.

3. 1999 Final Rule

In response to petitions for a

rulemaking, the agency amended

NHTSA’s tire identification and

recordkeeping regulation in 1999 to

require the date of manufacture to be

expressed in four digits, instead of the

previously required three, so that

consumers would be able to determine

the decade of manufacture of their tires

(64 FR 36807; July 8, 1999). This rule

also reduced the minimum size of the

digits from the then-currently required

minimum of 6 mm (1⁄4 inch) to 4 mm

(5⁄32 inch) to relieve the manufacturers

and retreaders of the burden they might

otherwise have incurred by having to

redesign their tire molds to

accommodate the additional digit.

In that rulemaking, all commenters

supported adding a fourth digit to the

date code. Two of the commenters,

though, opposed reducing the size of the

numbers in the TIN on the basis that

such reduction would make it more

difficult for consumers to see, especially

those with visual pathologies. These

commenters did not, however, provide

any data showing that drivers cannot

read 4 mm (5⁄32 inch) symbols. NHTSA

said that its experience to date with 4

mm (5⁄32 inch) symbols on tires suggest

that symbols of that size do not present

a problem.5 As discussed in the final

rule, 4 mm (5⁄32 inch) is approximately

the equivalent of font size 16 in

Windows 95, which is approximately

double the font size used in the Federal

Register and also approximately double

the size of the largest letters found on

the U.S. quarters being minted then.

Additionally, this agency pointed out

that the size of the Uniform Tire Quality

Grading Standards tire grades marked

on tire sidewalls has always been 4 mm

(5⁄32 inch) and the agency had not

received any complaints that those

letters or numbers were too small to

read. Finally, Part 574 permits tires of

less than 13 inches in diameter or those

75226 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 232 / Friday, December 1, 2000 / Proposed Rules

6The UTQGS is not applicable to retreaded tires.

7Prior to May 24, 1999 (64 FR 27921), passenger

car manufacturers were required to directly provide

general UTQGS information and the information

specified in Section 575.104 in writing and the

English language to purchasers and potential

purchasers at the point of sale of new vehicles. The

agency eliminated this requirement, instead

requiring that the information be contained within

the owner’s manual, because it believed that the

elimination of the point-of-sale requirement would

relieve a significant burden on vehicle

manufacturers and dealers and yet would have little

effect on consumers (64 FR 27921; May 24, 1999).

8Herzlich Consulting (Herzlich) petitioned the

agency on March 12, 1992, to amend FMVSS Nos.

110 and 120 to include a requirement that the

manufacturers of the vehicles subject to those

standards place a warning in the glove

compartment or some other accessible/visible

location which would state, in high visibility

letters: ‘‘Warning: Underinflation, Overloading, or

Damage can Cause any Tire to Fail Suddenly.’’ In

support of the petition, Herzlich argued that

although the Federal and state governments and the

tire industry continuously communicate tire safety

information, such efforts are ‘‘rather unsuccessful.’’

Herzlich also argued that tire failure due to road

hazard damage, underinflation, or overload

continues to be a problem. The petitioner stated

that tires are the most important safety component

on the vehicle and, perhaps because of their high

degree of reliability, they are often taken for granted

by consumers. Herzlich also referred to unspecified

surveys purporting to show that a ‘‘significant

number of vehicles are running on underinflated,

overloaded, worn-out or damaged tires,’’ which, it

contended, indicates that people get careless and

need to be reminded over and over again to inspect

and properly maintain their tires.’’

After a full and careful review of the petition,

NHTSA decided to deny it based on several factors

(57 FR 45759; October 5, 1992). First, there already

existed a vast amount of information on proper tire

maintenance. Additionally, the agency stated that

there was no reason to believe that requiring the

same information be made available in another

place would increase consumer’s responsiveness to

such information. Finally, the petitioner presented

no data, and this agency was aware of none, that

would support petitioner’s assertion that improper

maintenance causes the vast majority of tire failures

or that a significant number of vehicles are running

on underinflated, overloaded, worn out or damaged

tires.

In summary, NHTSA believed at that time that

the wealth of safety materials already available to

the public through industry, government, and

consumer sources adequately addressed the issue of

proper tire inflation and maintenance; that existing

labeling requirements provided sufficient

information to enable consumers to maintain tires

properly and safely; and that the petitioner had not

shown that the amendments it proposed would

significantly change the behavior of the public in

that respect.

that have less than a 6-inch cross

section width to have a letter/number

size of 4 mm (5⁄32 inch). Again, the

agency had not received any complaints

about the size of those letters/numbers.

C. Other Labeling

Labeling requirements are also

contained in 49 CFR part 567,

Certification, 49 CFR part 575,

Consumer Information Regulations,

FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and

Rims, applicable to passenger cars and

to non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies

for use on passenger cars, and FMVSS

No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for

Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger

Cars.

Section 567.4 requires vehicle

manufacturers to affix to each vehicle a

label bearing, among other things, the

Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR),

which must not be less than the sum of

the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo

load, and 150 pounds times the

vehicle’s rated seating capacity; and the

Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR),

which is the value specified by the

manufacturer as the load carrying

capacity of a single axle system.

Section 30123(e) of Title 49, U.S.

Code, requires the Secretary of

Transportation to prescribe a uniform

quality grading system for motor vehicle

tires to help consumers make an

informed choice when purchasing tires.

NHTSA implemented this statutory

mandate by issuing the Uniform Tire

Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) at

49 CFR 575.104, which are applicable to

new passenger car tires.6 The UTQGS

require passenger car and tire

manufacturers and tire brand name

owners to provide consumers with

information with respect to the

treadwear, traction, and temperature

resistance performance of their tires.

Excluded from the UTQGS are deeptread, winter-type snow tires, spacesaver or temporary-use spare tires, tires

with nominal rim diameters of 12

inches or less and limited production

tires as described in 49 CFR

575.104(c)(2).

Section 575.6(a) of Title 49, CFR,

requires that when a motor vehicle is

delivered to the first purchaser for

purposes other than resale, the vehicle

manufacturer must provide, in writing

and in the English language, the

information specified in section 575.103

applicable to that vehicle, and in the

owner’s manual, the information

specified in section 575.104. 7 Section

575.104(d)(1)(iii) requires vehicle

manufacturers to list all possible grades

for traction and temperature resistance

and restate verbatim the explanation of

each of the three graded aspects of

performance. The information must also

contain a statement referring the reader

to the tire sidewall for the specific

graded performance of the tires with

which the vehicle is equipped. Section

575.6(c) requires that each vehicle

manufacturer, brand name owner of

tires, and manufacturer of tires for

which there is no brand name owner to

provide the information specified in

subpart B of Part 575 to prospective

purchasers at each location at which its

vehicles or tires are offered for sale.

Paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110

requires manufacturers to affix a placard

to each passenger car’s glove

compartment door or an equally

accessible location showing the

vehicle’s capacity weight, designated

seating capacity, the manufacturer’s

recommended cold tire inflation

pressure for maximum loaded vehicle

weight, the manufacturer’s

recommended tire size designation, and,

for a vehicle equipped with a nonpneumatic spare tire assembly, the nonpneumatic identification code required

by FMVSS No. 129, New NonPneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars. The

required information is intended to

promote the vehicle’s safe performance

by preventing overloading of the tires or

the vehicle itself.8

Paragraph S5.3 of FMVSS No. 120

requires that each vehicle show, on the

label required by section 567.4, or on a

tire information label, the following

information: the recommended tire size

designation appropriate for the GAWR;

the size and type designation of rims

appropriate for those tires; and the

recommended cold inflation pressure

for those tires such that the sum of the

load ratings of the tires on each axle

(when the tires’ load carrying capacity

at the specified pressure is reduced by

dividing by 1.10, in the case of a tire

subject to FMVSS No. 109, i.e., a

passenger car tire, installed on a

multipurpose passenger vehicles

(MPVs), truck, bus or trailer) is

appropriate for the GAWR. The

reduction in load rating is intended to

provide a safety margin for the generally

harsher treatment, such as heavier

loading and possible off-road use, that

passenger car tires receive when

installed on a MPV, truck, bus or trailer

instead of on a passenger car.

III. Questions for Public Comment

To aid the agency in conducting this

rulemaking, the agency is seeking

answers from the public to the following

questions:

A. General Consumer Knowledge and

Behavior/Availability of Information to

Consumers

(1) Are consumers being given the

information they need to maintain their

tires properly, to determine how much

weight (passengers plus cargo) they can

safely place in their vehicles, and to

identify tires that have been determined

to be defective or noncompliant? What

tire information is most important for

consumers to have for safety and recall

purposes?

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 232 / Friday, December 1, 2000 / Proposed Rules 75227

9Blackwall tires with white raised lettering on

one sidewall have their TIN molded on the opposite

sidewall. These tires, like whitewall tires, are

mounted with their TIN facing inward.

(2) Do consumers read and correctly

understand the information that they are

currently receiving? For example, do

consumers understand the factors that

contribute to tire failure (such as speed,

tire inflation pressure, and weight) and

the steps they can take to reduce the

possibility of tire failure? Do consumers

know where to locate tire information in

their vehicles, particularly

recommended cold tire inflation

pressure and maximum load

information? Do consumers read the

information in the owner’s manual

regarding proper tire care? Are

consumers confused when they find a

difference between the recommended

tire inflation pressure labeled on their

vehicle and the maximum inflation

pressure labeled on the tire? Which of

those two pressures do they follow in

inflating their tires? Do consumers

understand the relationship/interaction

between tire inflation pressure and the

load that a vehicle and its tires can

safely carry? Do consumers understand

how and when to measure cold inflation

pressure? Do consumers understand and

use the tire labeling information that

currently appears on the tires and in the

vehicle?

(3) Do consumers routinely use and

correctly follow the guidance included

in that information? For example, do

they typically inflate their own tires?

How often? To what level?

(4) What tire information do

consumers want, how do they want it

expressed, and where would they prefer

to see that tire information located on

their tires or in their vehicles? If any

focus group studies have been

conducted by manufacturers or other

organizations regarding the consumers’

needs in this area, should the agency

use them to aid in assessing how to

meet those needs? Should the agency

supplement these studies by conducting

its own focus group study? If so, what

questions should be presented to the

focus groups?

B. TIN Information

Location

The continued use of tires determined

to be unsafe poses a safety risk not only

for the occupants of the vehicles

equipped with those tires, but also for

other highway users near those vehicles.

To the extent that it is difficult and

inconvenient to check the TINs, the

percentage of people who respond to a

tire recall campaign may be reduced,

and motorists unknowingly could

continue to drive their vehicles with

unsafe tires.

The side of a tire bearing the TIN is

often mounted so that it faces inward.

In the case of whitewall tires, this

occurs because the TIN is almost always

molded on the blackwall (i.e., inside

sidewall) of the tire.9 Whitewall tires

account for a small and declining

percentage (currently about 5 percent or

less) of original equipment tire sales in

this country, but about 40 percent of

replacement tires. The ratio of original

equipment tires to replacement tires is

about 1 to 3. Blackwall tires have the

TIN on one sidewall. The agency

believes that blackwall tires (other than

those with white raised lettering) are as

likely to be mounted with the number

side facing in as out. Thus, it appears

that a substantial percentage of tires are

mounted with their TINs not readily

visible. We would appreciate

information from commenters that

would help us to estimate the

percentage of tires with the TIN facing

inward.

When the TINs appear on the inside

sidewalls of the tires mounted on

vehicles, motorists have three

inconvenient ways of finding the TINs.

They must either: (1) Slide under the

vehicle with a flashlight, pencil and

paper and search the inside sidewalls

for the TINs; (2) remove each tire, find

the TIN, and then replace the tire; or (3)

enlist the aid of a garage or service

station attendant or tire retailer.

Improved access to the TIN would

enhance the owner’s ability to

determine if his or her tires have been

recalled. Requiring that the TIN be

placed on the outside sidewall of

whitewall and raised-letter tires and on

both sides of blackwall tires would

significantly facilitate finding the TIN

and thus should increase the ability of

consumers to know whether their tires

are covered by recall campaigns.

(5) Based on the above discussion,

how should the current requirements

regarding the location of the TIN be

modified, if at all, to make it easier for

consumers to determine whether their

tires are covered by a safety recall?

(6) The agency originally proposed in

an NPRM published July 23, 1970 (35

FR 11800) that the TIN be marked on

both sidewalls. As discussed above in

the background section, one of the

objections raised by the industry and

others to that proposal was a safety

hazard said to be associated with

positioning the TIN on both sidewalls

during the manufacturing process. Ten

years later, in its 1980 NPRM, the

agency concluded, based on new

information from tire manufacturers,

that the potential safety hazard had been

eliminated or at least reduced to a

manageable level. Was this conclusion

correct? Is there any remaining

significant hazard that is not

addressable at reasonable cost? Please

describe any manufacturing process

changes that have been made that make

it safer now than it was in 1970 to

position the TIN manufacturing plates

during tire assembly. Are there any

additional changes that could be made

to improve the safety of this operation?

(7) What are the economic costs of

requiring that the TIN appear on both

sidewalls of some types of tires? Are

there alternative available methods of

manufacture that would facilitate

placing the TIN on both sidewalls? If so,

please describe these processes in

detail.

(8) Where, in relation to the bead and

the shoulder of the tire, should the TIN

be positioned on the sidewall to ensure

that it can be easily located by

consumers? Should the current

requirements regarding TIN location in

FMVSS Nos. 109 and 119 be changed to

improve the visibility of the TIN to

consumers? How would your answer to

the immediately preceding question be

affected by the considerations of

manufacturing feasibility and the

vulnerability of the TIN to abrasion in

certain sidewall locations as a result of

contact with curbs and other hard

objects?

Content and Readability

(9) Should all of the information

currently required in the TIN be

retained or should the agency cease to

require some of it? Should the agency

require that any information be added to

the TIN or otherwise be required to be

shown on the sidewalls of the tire? For

instance, would it be helpful for the

plant location, manufacturer’s name,

date of manufacture or country of

manufacture to be shown on the

sidewalls of the tire? Should the

number, format, and type of symbols be

revised? Should any of the information

currently required to be included in the

TIN be deleted? Please provide

examples.

(10) The current labeling requirement

allows, at the option of the

manufacturer, the use of up to four

symbols in the TIN for marketing

information. Should these optional

symbols be either prohibited or

separated from the mandatory portion of

the TIN to shorten it? Would this

facilitate reading the TIN and

identifying recalled tires?

(11) What type of changes to the

appearance of the lettering and

numbering would make it easier for

75228 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 232 / Friday, December 1, 2000 / Proposed Rules

10The maximum load rating is the amount of load

that may be carried by the tire at the tire’s

maximum permissible inflation pressure.

11The load index is a part of the labeling required

by Economimc Commission for Europe (ECE)

Regulation 30 Annex 3, which requires the load

index and the speed-category symbol to be placed

together near the size designation. For example, the

sidedwall would contain the size designation

* * *. {P215/65R15 89H} where ‘‘89’’ is the load

index and ‘‘H’’ is the speed-category symbol. Annex

4 of Regulation 30 provides a Tablewith the Load

Index and corresponding Load Rating in kilograms.

12The load index is not required to be labeled on

tires sold in the U.S. However, the maximum load

rating is required in the U.S. but no in the ECE

Regulation. Often the load index is placed on tires

so that manufacturers can simultaneusly comply

with both ECE and FMVSS requirements.

13Manufacturers often warrant that a tire will last

for a specified number of miles, subject to a number

of terms and exclusions, e.g., the tire must be

rotated at specified intervals.

14State inspection systems require that the tread

on each tire be not less than 2⁄32 inch deep. See 49

CFR § 570.9(a).

consumers to read the TIN? Should

raised letters with contrasting colors be

required? If not, should other methods

(e.g., reflectivity) be used to increase the

readability of the TIN?

(12) What minimum should NHTSA

specify for the height of the symbols in

the TIN? Currently, the required

minimum height for the symbols in the

first three groups of the TIN is 1⁄4 inch

(0.25 inch or 6.35 mm), while the

required minimum height for the

symbols in the fourth group of the TIN

is 5⁄32 inch (0.16 inch or 4 mm). Should

one height be specified for all four

groups of symbols? If so, what height?

Please provide data to support your

suggestions regarding the appropriate

height for the symbols. Please discuss

how your answer to this question would

be affected by the adoption of any of the

types of appearance changes mentioned

in the immediately preceding question.

C. Other Tire Labeling Information

Load Ratings

(13) Should the maximum load

rating 10 in kilograms (kg)/pounds (lbs)

at the maximum permissible inflation

pressure in pounds per square inch

(psi), as is currently required by FMVSS

Nos. 109 and 119, continue to be shown

on the tire? If the maximum load rating

were replaced by a load index number

(a numerical code associated with the

maximum load a tire can carry at the

speed indicated by its speed symbol

under specified service conditions),

would it be more effective or less

effective in conveying the load limits of

the tire to consumers? 11

(14) Do consumers understand and

effectively use the load index values

that are now provided on some tires? 12

When purchasing replacement tires, do

consumers typically refer to the

maximum load rating and/or the load

index for their vehicle? Do they

sometimes replace extra load capacity

tires with standard capacity tires? Please

provide data to support your responses

to this question.

(15) What assistance do tire retailers

provide consumers in selecting a tire

with the correct load rating or load

index for their vehicle? Is this assistance

provided to all customers or only to

those customers who ask about the

rating or index? How much information

do the retailers provide to ensure that a

consumer chooses a tire that is right for

his or her vehicle? Do the retailers

routinely check the certification label

information for gross vehicle weight

rating (GVWR) or gross axle weight

rating (GAWR) to ensure that the load

capacity of the tires selected by the

purchaser exceeds the GAWR/GVWR of

the vehicle?

(16) When motorists load a light

vehicle (i.e., a passenger car, pickup

truck, sport utility vehicle (SUV) or a

minivan with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or

less), how do they determine whether

the vehicle is capable, given the

pressure to which the vehicle’s tires are

inflated, of safely carrying the load?

How frequently do they use the load

rating information on the tires to make

this determination? When they do use

it, how do they do so? Do they make the

determination correctly?

(17) Do consumers often overload

their light vehicles? If so, to what

extent? What factors contribute to

overloading? Do consumers accurately

estimate the loaded weight of their

vehicles? If overloading frequently

occurs, what allowance for such

overloading should be included in

passenger car tire load ratings? FMVSS

No. 120 currently specifies that if

passenger car tires are used on vehicles

other than passenger cars, each tire’s

load rating is to be reduced by dividing

by 1.10. The requirement is intended to

provide a safety margin for the generally

harsher treatment, such as heavier

loading and possible off-road use, that

passenger car tires receive when

installed on a MPV, truck, bus, or

trailer, instead of on a passenger car.

Plies and Cord Materials

(18) FMVSS Nos. 109 and 119

currently require that the actual number

of plies used in the tread area and in the

sidewall be labeled on both sidewalls.

FMVSS No. 109 also requires that the

generic name of each cord material used

in the plies be indicated on the label.

Should this information continue to be

marked on the tire? What is the safety

value of providing consumers with this

information? How do they actually

make use of the information? Should

any descriptive/qualitative information,

such as the tire manufacturer’s ‘‘mileage

warranty,’’ 13 be added to tires?

Tread Wear Indicator

(19) FMVSS Nos. 109 and 119 require

that tires be equipped with a tread wear

indicator that enables motorists to

determine visually whether tires have

worn to a tread depth of 2⁄32 inch. 14

Notwithstanding the inclusion of

information about the tread wear

indicator in the owner’s manual, should

any information also be placed on a

label in the vehicle to inform consumers

about the tread wear indicator and its

purpose? If so, what information should

be provided? Should markings be

placed on the sidewall of the tire to

pinpoint the location of the tread wear

indicator on the tread surface? If yes,

what type and size of marking would be

most effective?

UTQGS

(20) The UTQGS provides consumer

information on the treadwear, traction

and temperature performance of

passenger car tires. What changes to the

UTQGS ratings should the agency

consider in order to make the ratings

more easily understood and more useful

for consumers?

(21) Section 575.104(c) provides that

the UTQGS apply to new pneumatic

passenger car tires. UTQGS does not

apply, however, to deep tread, wintertype snow tires, space-saver or

temporary use spare tires, tires with

nominal rims of 12 inches or less, or

‘‘limited production’’ tires. Should any

of these types of tires, such as deep

tread tires which are frequently used on

SUVs/MPVs, be required to be labeled

with the UTQGS information? Should

UTQGS also apply to light truck tires

(LT-metric) since these tires are also

used on SUVs, MPVs, and light trucks?

Please be specific in your response and

provide a basis for your answer.

Speed Rating

(22) The speed rating of a tire is

generally indicated on the tire although

not required by either FMVSS Nos. 109

and 119. Should steps be taken to

increase the likelihood that consumers

purchase replacement tires with a speed

rating at least as high as the rating

specified by the vehicle manufacturer?

If so, what steps should be taken and

why? Do tire retailers routinely assist

consumers to ensure that the selected

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 232 / Friday, December 1, 2000 / Proposed Rules 75229

15The maximum cold inflation pressure is

labeled on the tire by the tire manufacturer to

provide the maximum cold inflation pressure to

which a tire may be inflated based upon the

maximum load rating for that tire. The

recommended inflation pressure is labeled on the

vehicle on a placard or the vehicle certification

label by the vehicle manufacturer to provide the

correct cold tire inflation pressure for the maximum

loaded vehicle weight based upon vehicle

specifications and operation, as determined by the

vehicle manufacturer.

tires have the correct speed rating for

their vehicles?

Run-Flat and Extended Mobility Tires

(23) Should run-flat or extended

mobility tires have that capability

identified on the tire and/or on the

vehicle certification label to ensure that

consumers know that a tire is

categorized as such? If so, how should

that capability be identified?

Retreaded Tires

(24) What changes, if any, should be

made in the labeling requirements

applicable to retreaded tires? Please

provide the basis for your response.

Tire Inflation Pressure

(25) With respect to passenger cars, a

placard containing the vehicle

manufacturer’s recommended cold tire

inflation pressure is required by FMVSS

No. 110 to be affixed to the glove

compartment door or an equally

accessible location, e.g., the driver’s

door pillar. With respect to motor

vehicles other than passenger cars,

similar information is required by

FMVSS No. 120 to appear on the vehicle

certification label or on the tire

information label. What other pertinent

tire information (e.g., tire size and speed

rating) should be considered for the

placard or the labels? What other

locations, such as the inside of the fuel

tank access door, should be considered

to ensure that the tire information

contained on the placard and the labels

is conspicuous to vehicle users and

why? The fuel tank access door is

regularly seen by drivers who fill their

own fuel tanks and at such times when

an air pump is generally available

nearby. Please provide the basis for your

responses.

(26) The maximum cold inflation

pressure value provided on the

sidewalls of the tire appears to mislead

some consumers, who use it as the

vehicle’s recommended inflation

pressure.15 Should the maximum

inflation pressure value (and the

corresponding maximum load rating for

tires subject to FMVSS No. 120) be

removed from the tire sidewall? What

would be the potential safety impact? If

no inflation pressure value appeared on

the tire, would users take the time to

seek the vehicle manufacturer’s

recommended cold inflation pressure on

the glove compartment door, the door

pillar, or the owner’s manual?

Dissemination of Tire Safety

Information

(27) Maintaining proper inflation

pressure in motor vehicle tires is

important to the safe and efficient use

of motor vehicles. Maintaining tires at

their proper inflation pressure, instead

of allowing them to become

underinflated, reduces heat build up,

minimizes tire wear, contributes to good

vehicle handling, and improves fuel

economy through decreasing the rolling

resistance of the tires. In light of the

trend toward self-service gasoline

stations, the responsibility for

maintaining proper inflation pressure

falls increasingly on motorists. Surveys

indicate that a significant number of

vehicles are being operated with

underinflated, overloaded and/or

damaged tires and that the public needs

to be reminded to inspect and properly

maintain their tires. What type of tire

safety information should be provided?

Where and how should it be presented

so that it is readily noticed and easily

understood? Should a tire inflation

warning label be placed in a

conspicuous location such as on the

exterior of the glove box door? In

answering these questions, please

consider the requirement in section 13

of the TREAD Act that the agency

complete a rulemaking to require a

warning system in new motor vehicles

to indicate to the operator when a tire

is significantly underinflated.

Motorcycles and Trailers

(28) Paragraph S5.1.1 of FMVSS No.

120 specifies that each motor vehicle

shall be equipped with tires that meet

the requirements of FMVSS No. 109 or

119. What are the merits of including or

excluding trailer tires, motorcycle tires,

etc., from any amendments to the tire

information labeling requirements that

may be proposed and adopted in this

rulemaking? Please be specific in your

response and provide a basis for your

answer.

Font Height for Labeling Information

(29) Currently, the various tire

labeling requirements specify the height

of letters, numbers, etc., used to convey

the required information. For instance,

FMVSS Nos. 109 and 119 require that

symbols be not less than 0.078 inches

(1.98 mm) in height, while the date of

manufacture symbols for the TIN under

Section 574.4 and the UTQGS figures

under Section 575.104 are required to be

not less than 5/32 inch (0.16 inch or 4

mm) in height. Is there any reason for

the agency to continue to specify

different minimum heights for different

types of required information or should

it require one height for all required

symbols? What height should be

chosen? Please provide a basis for your

answer. Please explain how your answer

to this question would be affected by the

adoption of a requirement to use

contrasting colors or other means to

increase the readability of the symbols.

D. Harmonization Issues

The agency is participating in the

development of a global tire standard as

part of a cooperative worldwide effort,

through the United Nations Economic

Commission for Europe, to establish

best safety and environmental practices

for motor vehicle regulations. The issue

of tire labeling is one of the issues being

addressed in ongoing negotiations to

develop worldwide labeling

requirements.

(30) Are there any voluntary

consensus standards or requirements of

other countries or regions which

address the issues raised in this

ANPRM? Do they provide effective ways

of accomplishing the purposes of this

rulemaking?

(31) What opportunities are there to

accomplish the purposes of this

rulemaking in ways that minimize any

unnecessary differences between

NHTSA’s requirements and those of

other countries and regions?

IV. Regulatory Analyses

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This advance notice was not reviewed

under Executive Order 12866 and under

the Department of Transportation’s

regulatory policies and procedures. Due

to the preliminary nature of this

document, NHTSA has identified few

specific changes that it might propose to

its standards and regulations. Further, it

has limited current cost information that

might be relevant to any potential

changes. Accordingly, NHTSA is unable

now to evaluate the economic impacts

that this rulemaking might ultimately

have. At this time, it does not appear

that the rule resulting from this

rulemaking will be significant.

However, NHTSA will reassess this

rulemaking in relation to the Executive

Order, the DOT Regulatory Policies and

Procedures, the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 and other

requirements for analyzing rulemaking

impacts after using the information

received in response to this advanced

75230 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 232 / Friday, December 1, 2000 / Proposed Rules

notice to select specific proposed

changes. To that end, the agency solicits

comments, information, and data useful

in assessing the impacts of making

changes to the various requirements

discussed in this document.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

Issued on: November 28, 2000.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator, Safety Performance

Standards.

[FR Doc. 00–30647 Filed 11–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 216

[I.D. 112400A]

Taking of the Cook Inlet (CI), Alaska,

Stock of Beluga Whales by Alaska

Natives

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of hearing; final agenda.

SUMMARY: This final agenda governs the

formal on-the-record hearing regarding

the proposed regulations to limit the

taking of CI, AK stock of beluga whales

by Alaska Natives.

DATES: The hearing will commence on

Tuesday, December 5, 2000, at 9:30 a.m.

AKST.

ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held

before Judge Parlen L. McKenna of the

United States Coast Guard at the United

States District Court 222 West 7th

Avenue, 2nd Floor Courtroom,

Anchorage, Alaska 99513.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barbara Mahoney, NOAA/NMFS,

Alaska Region, Anchorage Field Office,

(907) 271-5006, fax (907) 271-3030, or

Michael Payne, NOAA/NMFS, Alaska

Region, (907) 586-7235, fax (907) 586-

7012, or Thomas Eagle, Office of

Protected Resources, (301) 713-2322,

ext. 105, fax (301) 713-4060.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In an

effort to recover CI beluga whales to its

Optimum Sustainable Population,

NMFS issued proposed regulations

under the Marine Mammal Protection

Act (MMPA) that would limit the

subsistence harvest of the whales by

Alaska Natives. Section 101(b) of the

MMPA provides an exemption to the

general moratorium on the taking of

marine mammals and permits Alaska

Natives to harvest marine mammals for

subsistence purposes or for the purpose

of creating traditional Native handicrafts

and clothing. However, the Federal

government may regulate Native

subsistence harvest of marine mammals

if the stock in question is designated as

depleted after regulations specific to the

depleted stock are issued and an

opportunity for notice and hearing on

the record has been provided.

After a depleted determination was

made on May 31, 2000 (65 FR 34590),

NMFS issued a proposed rule on

October 4, 2000 (65 FR 59164), to

regulate subsistence harvest of CI beluga

whales by Alaska Natives. The proposed

regulation provides that:

(1) Subsistence harvest can only occur

under an agreement between NMFS and

an Alaska Native organization pursuant

to section 119 of the MMPA;

(2) Subsistence harvest shall be

limited to no more than two strikes

annually until the stock is no longer

considered depleted under the MMPA;

(3) The sale of CI beluga whale

products shall be prohibited;

(4) All hunting for subsistence

purposes shall occur after July 15 each

year; and

(5) The harvest of newborn calves, or

adult whales with maternally dependent

calves shall be prohibited.

All interested persons or parties have

been given an opportunity to file a

notice of intent to participate in the

hearing that will be conducted in

accordance with section 103(d) of the

MMPA. Such interested persons or

parties have also been given an

opportunity to file direct testimony and

documentary exhibits. Parties who

submitted notice of intent to participate

in the hearing were advised to submit

rebuttal testimony by Novenber 28,

2000. Pursuant to the procedural

regulations governing the formal

rulemaking hearing that was reinstated

on June 27, 2000 (65 FR 39560), Judge

Parlen McKenna issued the following

notice identifying the participants and

the final agenda as follows:

Participant Interest

Thomas J. Meyer, Esq., NOAA, Office of General

Counsel, Juneau, AK

Represents NMFS (i.e., the proponent of the proposed regulations)

Joel and Debra Blatchford, Kasilof, AK Represents Eskimo whale hunters. Generally supports the proposed regulations. However, he argues that Eskimos should be a party to any co-management agreement

governing the harvest of CI beluga whales and one strike should be allocated to the

Eskimos.

Steve Silver, Esq., Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh,

Arlington, VA

Represents the Municipalities of Anchorage, Kenai Peninsula Borough, and MatankuskaSusistna Bourough. Generally supports the proposed regulations.

Judy Brady, Exec. Dir., Alaska Oil and Gas, and Jeffrey W. Leppo, Esq., Stoel Rives, LLP., Seattle,

WA

Represents Alaska Oil & Gas Assoc. (‘‘AOGA’’). Generally supports the proposed regulations. AOGA expresses concerns regarding (1) the effectiveness of the co-management agreement strategy; (2) the agency’s ability to enforce the regulations and manage the subsistence harvest of CI beluga whales; and (3) whether illegal takes will be

counted against the two-strike harvest limit.