[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 105 (Thursday, June 1, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28561-28564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13314]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 95-43, Notice 01]
RIN No. 2127-AF05


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Tire Selection and Rims 
for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars

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

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This notice solicits comments to assist NHTSA in determining 
whether to propose certain amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (Standard) No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles 
other than passenger cars.
    This rulemaking action implements NHTSA's granting of a petition 
for rulemaking submitted by the Tire Retreading Institute (TRI). The 
petition suggested that paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 120 be amended 
to permit the installation of manufacturer-supplied retreaded tires on 
new trailers. As currently provided, used or retreaded tires may be 
installed on new trucks, buses, and trailers only if owned and provided 
by the vehicle purchaser. This notice solicits comments on that 
suggestion and, in addition, solicits comments on whether the standard 
should be further amended to permit manufacturers and/or distributors 
and dealers, in addition to the vehicle purchasers, to install used as 
well as retreaded tires on new trucks and buses as well as trailers.

DATES: Comment closing date: Comments on this notice must be received 
on or before September 29, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above 
and be submitted to: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5109, Washington, DC 
20590. Docket Room hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Terri Droneburg, Office of Vehicle 
Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street SW., Room 5307, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone (202) 
366-6617.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Standard No. 120 requires that vehicles equipped with pneumatic 
tires for highway service be equipped with new tires that meet the 
requirements of either Standard No. 109, New pneumatic tires (49 CFR 
571.109) or Standard 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than 
passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119).\1\ Paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 
120, however, provides that in place of tires that meet Standard No. 
119, a truck, bus, or trailer may, at the request of the vehicle 
purchaser, be equipped at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with 
used or retreaded tires owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser. The 
sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires must meet the requirements 
of paragraph S5.1.2 of the standard, which requires that the sum of the 
maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle be not less than 
the gross axle weight rating of the axle system. Also, only used tires 
originally [[Page 28562]] manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119, 
as evidenced by a DOT symbol marked on the sidewall of the tire, can 
qualify for the S5.1.3 exception.

    \1\ Standard No. 120 also requires vehicles to be equipped with 
rims that are listed by tire manufacturers as suitable for use with 
their tires in accordance with Standard Nos. 109 and 119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Standard No. 120 was promulgated by 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 was intended to 
accommodate ``mileage contract'' purchasers, a common practice in the 
commercial truck, bus and trailer industry in which the purchaser's 
vehicles are equipped with tires purchased or leased from a supplier on 
a cost-per-mile basis.
    In reviewing the standard after its issuance, NHTSA noted some 
minor errors and some portions of the standard that required 
clarification. The agency published a 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 that exception to mileage contract purchasers only. The agency 
reasoned that suppliers that 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 believed 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 palpably unsafe tires for mounting on a new vehicle.
    Thirteen comments to the NPRM were received, 12 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 
tire banks to vehicle manufacturers for mounting on the new vehicles 
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 costs 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 pointed out that Standard No. 
120 did not require that new vehicles be equipped with tires. 
Therefore, a purchaser could, if it chose to do so, order a new vehicle 
for delivery without tires, then install unsafe tires on it after 
delivery.
    NHTSA was persuaded by those comments and decided not to limit the 
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 retread 
tire proposal supported it, NHTSA adopted that provision for inclusion 
in S5.1.3. NHTSA then published the final rule promulgating the current 
provisions of Standard No. 120 on May 17, 1984 (49 FR 20822).

II. Petition for Rulemaking

    The Tire Retreading Institute (TRI), a division of the National 
Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association, suggested in a petition for 
rulemaking that the used/retreaded tire exception of S5.1.3 be amended 
to permit the installation of manufacturer-supplied retreaded tires on 
new trailers. TRI argued that retreaded tires from any source should be 
permitted as long as they meet appropriate quality standards and as 
long as the vehicle purchaser is informed that the vehicle has 
retreaded tires. TRI believed that permitting the installation of 
manufacturer-supplied retreaded tires would give the purchaser greater 
flexibility in the choice of tires for the new vehicle.
    TRI asserted that the current restriction on the source of 
retreaded tires is not supported by safety considerations. TRI 
suggested that by permitting the use of purchaser-supplied retreaded 
tires on new trailers, NHTSA acknowledged that retreaded tires can 
safely be used on those vehicles. TRI believed that NHTSA decided to 
permit installation of only purchaser-supplied used or retreaded tires 
and not manufacturer-supplied used or retreaded tires because the 
agency believed purchasers have an interest, perhaps not shared by 
manufacturers, in ensuring that higher quality tires are placed on 
their own vehicles. TRI argued that, to the contrary, the vehicle 
manufacturer would be more knowledgeable than the purchaser of the 
safety characteristics of the vehicle and its tires and, because of 
vehicle warranty and liability considerations, would select retreaded 
tires with the same quality considerations as in selecting such vehicle 
components as axles, bearings, or new tires. Since the retreaded tires 
would be installed at the manufacturer's initiative, TRI considered it 
essential that the purchaser be advised in writing that the new vehicle 
was equipped with retreaded tires, giving the purchaser the opportunity 
to make further inquiries or impose additional requirements, while 
still enjoying the cost advantage of retreaded tires.
    TRI also argued that the current exclusion of manufacturer-supplied 
retreaded tires is unfair to small purchasers of trailers. TRI said 
that currently, only large fleet owners with tire banks can take 
advantage of the cost savings of retreaded tires, while small 
businesses with only a few vehicles and no available supply of tire 
casings cannot. TRI argued that the current regulation discriminates 
against small purchasers because these businesses must acquire 
retreaded tires from another source and ship them to the manufacturer 
for installation. TRI considered this an unnecessary, burdensome 
practice.
    TRI also asserted that in the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., Congress mandated the use of 
recycled products to the maximum extent practicable, including the use 
of retreaded tires. TRI further referred to an Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) regulation that, in implementing the RCRA, requires 
federal agencies to procure retreaded tires ``to the maximum extent 
possible'' (40 CFR 253.10). Accordingly, the petitioner believed that 
the current restriction on manufacturer-supplied retreaded tires 
contravenes these governmental policies of promoting the maximum use of 
retreaded tires.

III. Agency Analysis of Petition

    As discussed above, paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 120 permits 
manufacturers of new trucks, buses, and trailers to install used or 
retreaded tires on those new vehicles only if such tires are supplied 
by the vehicle purchaser. Apart from that narrow exception, paragraph 
S5.1.1 of the standard requires the installation of new tires that meet 
the requirements of Standard Nos. 109 or 119.
    While there is a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, Standard 
No. 117, Retreaded pneumatic tires, for retreaded tires on passenger 
cars, there is no similar standard for retreaded tires for vehicles 
other than passenger cars. Further, there are no performance standards 
applicable to used tires since this agency does not have authority to 
regulate used vehicles or equipment. As noted above, in issuing the 
S5.1.3 [[Page 28563]] exception NHTSA reasoned that motor vehicle 
purchasers would be likely to provide safe, serviceable tires for 
installation on their new vehicles. NHTSA believes that reasoning has 
been vindicated in that the agency has received no reports of any 
safety problems associated with the use of purchaser-provided used or 
retreaded tires. The agency still believes, however, that such 
reasoning would not extend to manufacturer-supplied used or retreaded 
tires and that, warranty and liability considerations notwithstanding, 
manufacturers, distributors and dealers would not have as great an 
interest as vehicle purchasers in providing safe, serviceable used or 
retreaded tires on their new vehicles. Further, manufacturers would not 
know the history of the used or retreaded tire casings as well as the 
vehicle purchaser would be expected to know.
    Nevertheless, although NHTSA disagrees with some of the 
petitioner's arguments, the agency granted TRI's petition on August 12, 
1993, in the belief that the petitioner raised some issues that merit 
further consideration. For example, the petitioner argues that 
installation of retreaded tires should be permitted, regardless of 
their source. Although this agency has received mixed reviews regarding 
the performance of retreaded tires, the petitioner correctly pointed 
out the policy of the Federal government in utilizing recycled 
products, including retreaded tires, to the extent practicable (see the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901, et seq., and 
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 253). The petitioner also 
correctly asserted that manufacturer-installed retreaded tires would 
provide purchasers greater flexibility in the choice of tires for their 
vehicles, as long as the purchaser was notified in writing that the 
vehicle was equipped with retreaded tires.
    On the other hand, the agency does not agree with the petitioner's 
assertion that the current limited exception in S5.1.3 is not supported 
by safety considerations. The agency believes that permitting vehicle 
purchasers to supply their own tires for their new vehicles is 
consistent with motor vehicle safety. Given the interest of vehicle 
purchasers in their personal safety and their economic interest in 
protecting their investment in their vehicles, vehicle purchasers have 
a strong motivation to install safe tires on their new vehicles. 
Further, although the agency is confident that most vehicle 
manufacturers are reliable and reputable and would select safe and 
serviceable tires for the vehicles they produce, it cannot be assumed 
that all manufacturers would be consistently reliable or conscientious 
in their selection of used and/or retreaded tires.
    Finally, NHTSA does not agree with the petitioner that the current 
exclusion of manufacturer-supplied used or retreaded tires 
discriminates against small businesses. Large businesses generally are 
in a better position than small businesses to take advantage of cost 
savings by large quantity transactions in return for discount prices. 
In this case, the standard gives both large and small businesses the 
advantage of utilizing tires already on hand on their new vehicles, 
thus saving the unnecessary costs of purchasing unneeded new tires.
    Although the petition suggested relaxing the limitation on the 
current S5.1.3 exception only to the extent of allowing installation of 
manufacturer-supplied retreaded tires on new trailers, NHTSA believes 
that it is appropriate to consider permitting the installation of 
manufacturer, distributor, and dealer-supplied used tires as well as 
retreaded tires on trucks and buses as well as trailers. This agency is 
committed to the use of recycled products to the extent practicable 
within the constraints of motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, if the use 
of used and retreaded tires, whether supplied by the purchaser, 
manufacturer, or distributor/dealer, is not inimical to motor vehicle 
safety, then NHTSA is receptive to considering further relaxation of 
the exception.

IV. Issues for NHTSA Consideration

    As pointed out above, NHTSA has no data on any correlation between 
motor vehicle safety and the use of used and retreaded tires on new 
trucks, buses, and trailers. The agency is hopeful, therefore, that 
this notice will elicit meaningful comments and suggestions on which to 
base a decision on whether or not to amend the exception in Standard 
No. 120 and, if so, to what extent. Accordingly, NHTSA requests 
comments on the following specific issues:
    1. How many or what percentage of new trucks, buses, and trailers 
are sold per year with purchaser-supplied used or retreaded tires 
installed?
    2. Who are the heaviest users of the S5.1.3 exception, mileage 
contract/tire bank purchasers or private citizens?
    3. Should any amendment to Standard No. 120 be limited to 
permitting the installation of only manufacturer-supplied retreaded 
tires only on new trailers? Should distributor/dealer-supplied 
retreaded tires also be permitted to be installed on new trailers?
    4. Should Standard No. 120 be amended to permit the installation of 
manufacturer-supplied retreaded tires on new trucks and buses as well 
as trailers? Should installation of distributor/dealer-supplied 
retreaded tires be permitted on new trucks and buses as well as 
trailers?
    5. Should Standard No. 120 be amended to permit the installation of 
manufacturer-supplied used tires on new trailers only? Should 
distributor/dealer-supplied used tires also be permitted on new 
trailers?
    6. Should Standard No. 120 be amended to permit the installation of 
manufacturer-supplied used tires on new trucks and buses as well as new 
trailers? Should distributor/dealer-supplied used tires also be 
permitted on new trucks and buses?
    7. Should used and/or retreaded tires be permitted on new school 
buses? On steering and/or drive axles of other new vehicles?

    Note: 49 CFR 393.75(d) prohibits the use of retreaded tires on 
the steering axles of buses operated in interstate commerce.

    8. Should NHTSA propose a Federal motor vehicle safety standard 
applicable to retreaded tires for motor vehicles other than passenger 
cars? If so, should it parallel Standard No. 117? Standard No. 119?
    9. What requirements or criteria should be established for the 
installation of manufacturer or distributor/dealer-supplied used and/or 
retreaded tires on new motor vehicles other than passenger cars?
    10. Should new vehicle purchasers, if not supplying or requesting 
the tires, be notified of the installation of used or retreaded tires? 
In writing? Orally?
    11. What would be the economic impact of permitting the 
installation of manufacturer or distributor/dealer-supplied retreaded 
tires on new trailers? On new trucks and buses as well as trailers?
    12. What would be the economic impact of permitting the 
installation of manufacturer or distributor/dealer-supplied used tires 
on new trailers? On new trucks and buses as well as trailers?
    13. What would be the environmental impact of permitting the 
installation of manufacturer or distributor/dealer-supplied retreaded 
tires on new trailers? On new trucks and buses as well as trailers?
    14. What would be the environmental impact of permitting the 
installation of manufacturer or distributor/dealer-supplied used as 
well as retreaded tires on new trailers? On new trucks and buses as 
well as trailers? [[Page 28564]] 

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This notice was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866. NHTSA has 
considered the impacts associated with this request for comments and 
has concluded that it is not significant under DOT's Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures. As explained above, this document requests 
comments to aid the agency in determining whether to propose amending 
Standard No. 120 and if so, the extent of such amendment.

B. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that 
this proposal does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

VI. Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposal. 
It is requested but not required that any comments be submitted in 10 
copies each.
    Comments must not exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21). This 
limitation is intended to encourage commenters to detail their primary 
arguments in concise fashion. Necessary attachments may be appended to 
these submissions without regard to the 15-page limit.
    If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim 
of confidentiality, 3 copies of the complete submission, including the 
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to 
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address shown above, and 7 
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been 
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for 
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth 
the information specified in 49 CFR part 512, the agency's confidential 
business information regulation.
    All comments received on or before the close of business on the 
comment closing date indicated above for the proposal will be 
considered, and will be available to the public for examination in the 
docket at the above address both before and after the closing date. To 
the extent possible, comments received after the closing date will be 
considered. Comments received too late for consideration in regard to 
the final rule will be considered as suggestions for further rulemaking 
action. Comments on the proposal will be available for public 
inspection in the docket. NHTSA will continue to file relevant 
information in the docket after the closing date, and it is recommended 
that interested persons continue to monitor the docket for new 
material.
    Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed stamped 
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the 
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued on May 23, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-13314 Filed 5-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P