20564 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket NHTSA–98–3398]

RIN 2127–AF05

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Retreaded/Regrooved for

New Trailers

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Withdrawal of rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice withdraws

rulemaking in connection with a

petition from the Tire Retreading

Institute (TRI) requesting that

manufacturer-supplied retreaded tires

be permitted for installation on new

trailers. TRI said in its petition that

there was no safety justification for the

limitations on the use of retreaded tires,

and that there would be significant

environmental benefits from

encouraging greater use of retreads.

NHTSA is withdrawing rulemaking

because of its concern that safety could

be degraded, since there is no safety

standard establishing performance

requirements for retreaded tires to be

used on new trailers. Since there would

be no means for the purchaser or this

agency to assure the quality of retreads

installed on new trailers, NHTSA is

concerned that making the change in the

petition could lessen safety.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Joseph P. Scott, Office of Crash

Avoidance Standards, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington,

D.C. 20590 (202) 366–8525.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

a. Tire Retreating Institute (TRI)

Petition

In 1993, the Tire Retreading Institute

(TRI) filed a petition asking the agency

to permit trailer manufacturers and

distributors and dealers to install

retreaded tires on new trailers without

any limitations. TRI said its petition that

there was no safety justification for the

limitations on the use of retreaded tires,

and that there would be significant

environmental benefits from

encouraging greater use of retreads.

Docket No. 95–43 was initiated in

response to the Tire Retreading Institute

(TRI) petition.

TRI asserted that the current

restriction on the source of retreaded

tires is not supported by safety

considerations, by implication, asserting

that retreaded tires are safe. TRI stated

in its comments that the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) had urged the

industry to petition NHTSA to revise its

regulations in this area.

TRI proposed new language for S5.1.3

of § 571.120, as follows:

In place of tires that meet the requirement

of Standard No. 119, a trailer may be

equipped with retreaded tires if the sum of

the maximum load ratings meets the

requirements of S5.1.2 and the purchaser is

informed in writing that the trailer is

equipped with such retreaded tires.

b. History of NHTSA Tire Standard

FMVSS No. 120 requires that vehicles

equipped with pneumatic tires for

highway service be equipped with new

tires that meet the requirements of

either FMVSS No. 109 or FMVSS No.

119. However, in place of tires that meet

FMVSS No. 119 paragraph S5.1.3 of

FMVSS No. 120 permits a truck, bus, or

trailer to—at the request of the vehicle

purchaser—be equipped at the place of

the vehicle’s manufacture with used or

retreaded tires owned or leased by the

vehicle purchaser. Only the vehicle

manufacturer can, per the request of the

purchaser, install retreaded tires on a

new trailer—dealers and distributors are

prohibited. The sum of the maximum

load ratings of the tires must meet the

requirements paragraph S5.1.2 of the

standard, which requires the sum of the

maximum load ratings of the tires fitted

to an axle to be equal to the weight

rating of the axle system. Also, only

tires originally manufactured to comply

with FMVSS No. 119, as evidenced by

a DOT symbol marked on the sidewall

of tire, can qualify for the S5.1.3

exception.

These limitations on the use of

retreaded tires were established because

NHTSA has no safety standard for nonpassenger car retreaded tires. Absent a

safety standard, NHTS decided to

establish some limitations—to help

ensure reasonable safety—on the use of

retreaded or regrooved tires on new

trucks and trailers. With respect to

retreads, the agency presumed that the

trailer purchaser would impose a

quality control program for the retreads

given to the trailer manufacturer that

would assure the purchaser that its new

vehicle had appropriate tires.

FMVSS No. 120 was promulgated in

a Federal Register notice dated January

23, 1976 (41 FR 3467) and became

effective in phases between September

1, 1976 and September 1, 1979. Initially,

the S5.1.3 exception applied only to

used tires owned or leased by the

vehicle purchaser, if the maximum load

ratings were sufficient to carry the loads

of the axles on which they were

installed. This action was intended to

accommodate ‘‘mileage contract

purchasers,’’ a common practice in the

commercial truck, bus, and trailer

industry by which the purchaser’s

vehicles are equipped with tires

purchased or leased from a supplier on

a cost-per-mile basis.

NHTSA reviewed the standard after

its issuance and noticed some minor

errors and areas that required

clarification. NHTSA published the

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

on October 30, 1980 (45 FR 71834)

proposing to amend S5.1.3 to permit the

installation of retreaded as well as used

tires, but limiting the exception to

mileage contract purchasers only. The

agency reasoned that suppliers who

provided tires on a mileage contract

basis had a contractual obligation to

ensure that the tires were serviceable

and safe for use on the vehicles for

which they were intended. The agency

further stated that this safeguard would

not exist in the case of any other

purchaser who was merely trying to

save the cost of purchasing new tires,

since a purchaser could send the vehicle

manufacturer marginal or unsafe tires

for mounting on a new vehicle.

c. NPRM (October 30, 1980)

In response to the NPRM dated

October 30, 1980, thirteen comments

were received by the docket—twelve of

which opposed the provision limiting

the exception to mileage contract

purchasers. The commenters stated that

it is common practice for all vehicle

fleets, not just mileage contract

purchasers, to send tires from their

banks to vehicle manufacturers for

mounting on the new vehicles that they

order. Tire banks are composed of

serviceable tires that have been removed

from vehicles that are no longer in

service. The commenters argued that the

proposal in the NPRM to limit the used/

retreaded tire exception to mileage

contract purchasers would effectively

eliminate the practice of maintaining

tire banks, thereby increasing the cost

for the vehicle fleets affected with no

safety justification for doing so. Some

commenters also argued that it made no

sense for a purchaser to spend $65,000

to $75,000 for a new vehicle, then

install unsafe tires on it. Finally, one

commenter correctly noted that FMVSS

No. 120 did not require that new

vehicles be equipped with tires.

Therefore, a purchaser could—if they

chose to do so—order a new vehicle

without tires, then install unsafe tires

after delivery.

NHTSA was persuaded by those

comments and decided not to limit the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Proposed Rules 20565

use of used and retreaded tires only to

mileage contract purchasers, but to

widen the exception to permit all

purchasers to provide their own tires. In

addition, since all commenters who

addressed the retreaded tire proposal

supported it, NHTSA adopted that

provision for inclusion in S5.1.3.

NHTSA published the final rule

promulgating the current provisions of

FMVSS No. 120 on May 17, 1984 (49 FR

20822).

d. Federal Register Notice (June 1,

1995)

On June 1, 1995, NHTSA’s Federal

Register Notice solicited comments on

TRI’s petition and whether the standard

should be further amended to permit

manufacturers, distributors, and

dealers—in addition to purchasers—to

install used and/or retreaded tires on

new trucks and buses. Also in the

notice, NHTSA posed fourteen

questions in an attempt to obtain data

ranging from the percentage of

purchasers that use tire contracts and/or

tire banks to the environmental impact

of granting the petition.

e. Agency’s Decision

NHTSA received 13 comments in

response to its notice. Three

commenters clearly supported the idea

of expanding the use of retreads on new

trailers. TRI, the petitioner, repeated its

request for that expansion in its

comments, noting that NHTSA has no

safety data showing that retreads are

less safe than new tires. Dempster

Industries, Inc. (a trailer manufacturer)

and Becker Tire & Treading, Inc. (a

retreader) both noted that recycling is

important and the requested expansion

would result in cost savings for all. Two

other commenters did not oppose the

idea of expanding the use of retreads on

new trailers. The American Trucking

Association (ATA) stated that retreads

cost about half as much as new tires and

that its members believe manufacturers

and dealers are capable of installing

suitable retreads on new trailers. ATA

said that this should not present any

serious problems if the customer is

clearly told what he or she is getting.

Fixible, a bus manufacturer, indicated

that, while it did not oppose the change,

that company would continue to install

only new tires, unless retreads were

provided by the purchaser.

Eight commenters opposed the

expansion requested in the petition.

Two tire manufacturers, Dunlop and

Continental General Tire, both urged the

agency to leave the requirements as they

are. Dunlop noted that there is no

Federal standard regulating these

retreads and that allowing any retread to

be used on new trailers would increase

the number of tire failures experienced

by new trailers. Both the Pennsylvania

Department of Transportation and the

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

also noted the absence of any Federal

standard for these retreads and

recommended that any expansion in the

use of retreads on new trailers should be

accompanied by a new Federal standard

for these retreads. The National

Automobile Dealers Association

opposed the expansion, arguing that the

price difference for new vs. retreaded

tires is insignificant when compared to

the price of a new vehicle. Two trailer

manufacturers opposed the proposed

change. Big Tex Trailers stated that tires

are critical to safety and the prior

history of retreads is not known. In that

company’s view, the change requested

would lessen safety. Sooner Trailer

Manufacturing Co., Inc. commented that

the National Association of Trailer

Manufacturers, which represents

manufacturers of trailers with a gross

vehicle weight rating of less than 26,000

pounds, has adopted a recommendation

that its members refrain from using

retreads as original equipment on new

trailers. Finally, the American

Retreaders Association commented that

it opposed the change and that its

members believe the current regulatory

provisions work well.

After considering these comments and

reexamining this area, NHTSA has

decided to terminate rulemaking on this

petition. Standard No. 120 currently

requires a quality control check of tires

mounted on new vehicles other than

passenger cars. If those tires are new

tires, they must be certified as

complying with NHTSA’s safety

standards for new tires. If the tires

mounted on new vehicles are used or

retreaded tires, the purchaser has

furnished those tires to the vehicle

manufacturer. Given the substantial

investment the purchaser is making in

a new vehicle, NHTSA has trusted

purchasers to take adequate steps to

assure that the tires given to the

manufacturer are safe and suitable for

use on the new vehicle.

Under the approach requested in

TRI’s petition, quality control of the

tires on new trailers would be left up to

vehicle manufacturers and dealers. As

noted in the comments, there is no

Federal safety standard for nonpassenger car retreads. In addition,

NHTSA is unaware of any voluntary

consensus industry standard for these

retreads. Given these circumstances, it

would be very difficult for vehicle

manufacturers and dealers to apply any

uniform standards for quality control

purposes. Absent uniform standards, it

would be difficult to assure no

degradation of safety of the tires

installed on new trailers and other nonpassenger cars.

NHTSA would reexamine this area if

information becomes available

indicating that adequate quality control

could be assured, such as an industry

standard, best practices of major

retreaders, or other voluntary

approaches, as well as, a possible

Federal Safety Standard. Without

assuring quality control of these

retreads, NHTSA is concerned that the

safety of tires on new trailers would be

diminished.

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

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

Issued on: April 21, 1998.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–11177 Filed 4–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 285 and 644

[I.D. 042098D]

Atlantic Tuna Fisheries; Atlantic

Billfishes; Public Hearings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of additional public

hearings.

SUMMARY: On April 9, 1998, NMFS

published a document announcing a

series of public hearings to receive

comments from fishery participants and

other members of the public regarding

proposed Atlantic bluefin tuna (ABT)

quota specifications and General

category effort controls, tournament

reporting for Atlantic billfishes, and an

increase in minimum size limits for

Atlantic blue marlin and Atlantic white

marlin. NMFS announces two

additional public hearings.

DATES: The additional hearings are

scheduled as follows:

1. Monday, May 4, 1998, 7 to 9 p.m.,

Riverhead, NY.

2. Monday, May 4, 1998, 7 to 9 p.m.,

Toms River, NJ.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to Rebecca Lent, Chief, Highly

Migratory Species Management

Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries

(F/SF1), NMFS, 1315 East-West