49412 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 168 / Thursday, September 2, 2021 / Notices 

1Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition 

for Determination of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899 (Apr. 14, 

2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was 

expected to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to 

vehicle occupants or approaching drivers). 

2See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 

35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding noncompliance had 

no effect on occupant safety because it had no effect 

on the proper operation of the occupant 

classification system and the correct deployment of 

an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods. Inc.; Grant of 

Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) 

(finding occupant using noncompliant light source 

would not be exposed to significantly greater risk 

than occupant using similar compliant light 

source). 

3 Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 

21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016). 

4United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 

754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an 

unreasonable risk when it ‘‘results in hazards as 

potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire, and 

where there is no dispute that at least some such 

hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be 

expected to occur in the future’’). 

5See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of 

Application for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23, 2001) 

(rejecting argument that noncompliance was 

inconsequential because of the small number of 

vehicles affected); Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd.; 

Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) 

(noting that situations involving individuals 

trapped in motor vehicles—while infrequent—are 

consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; 

Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21664 (Apr. 12, 

2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be 

granted because the vehicle was produced in very 

low numbers and likely to be operated on a limited 

basis). 

6See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for 

Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 

69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14, 2004); Cosco Inc.; 

Denial of Application for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 

29409 (June 1, 1999). 

Because the label is located on the tire 

sidewall, it is not likely to be 

misidentified. A reader will be able to 

read the date code, by spinning the tire, 

and therefore inverting the date code 

will allow it to easily be read. 

The petitioner argues that, as with the 

Cooper tires, the date code on the 

subject tires is located on the sidewall, 

is not likely to be misidentified, and a 

reader will be able to read and 

understand the date code. Hankook 

communicated in an email to the agency 

on November 19, 2020, that a partial 

TIN is labeled on at least one sidewall 

of the tire. The subject tires otherwise 

meet the marking and performance 

requirements of FMVSS No. 139. 

4. Hankook is not aware of any 

complaints, claims, or incidents related 

to the subject noncompliance. 

Hankook concludes that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety, and that 

its petition to be exempted from 

providing notification of the 

noncompliance, as required by 49 

U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the 

noncompliance, as required by 49 

U.S.C. 30120, should be granted. 

VI. NHTSA’s Analysis: In evaluating 

this tire labeling noncompliance issue, 

NHTSA considered if the incorrectly 

marked date code could mislead a 

consumer about the actual age of the tire 

or make it difficult to correctly 

determine if the tire has been recalled. 

The burden of establishing the 

inconsequentiality of a failure to comply 

with a performance requirement in a 

standard—as opposed to a labeling 

requirement with no performance 

implications—is more substantial and 

difficult to meet. Accordingly, the 

Agency has not found many such 

performance-related noncompliances 

inconsequential.1 Potential performance 

failures of safety-critical equipment, like 

seat belts or air bags, are rarely deemed 

inconsequential. 

An important issue to consider in 

determining inconsequentiality is the 

safety risk to individuals who 

experience the type of event against 

which the recall would otherwise 

protect.2 In general, NHTSA does not 

consider the absence of complaints or 

injuries to show that the issue is 

inconsequential to safety. ‘‘Most 

importantly, the absence of a complaint 

does not mean there have not been any 

safety issues, nor does it mean that there 

will not be safety issues in the future.’’ 3

‘‘[T]he fact that in past reported cases 

good luck and swift reaction have 

prevented many serious injuries does 

not mean that good luck will continue 

to work.’’ 4

Arguments that only a small number 

of vehicles or items of motor vehicle 

equipment are affected have also not 

justified granting an inconsequentiality 

petition.5 Similarly, NHTSA has 

rejected petitions based on the assertion 

that only a small percentage of vehicles 

or items of equipment are likely to 

actually exhibit a noncompliance. The 

percentage of potential occupants that 

could be adversely affected by a 

noncompliance does not determine the 

question of inconsequentiality. Rather, 

the issue to consider is the consequence 

to an occupant who is exposed to the 

consequence of that noncompliance.6

These considerations are also relevant 

when considering whether a defect is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

In the instant case, the date code 

required by FMVSS No. 139 is properly 

located in the right-most position and 

shows the correct week and year of 

manufacture but has been imprinted 

upside-down, and the upside-down font 

cannot be confused with right-side up 

font. If a consumer reads the label as it 

is, the fact that the date code is inverted 

would become self-evident. In such a 

case, it would not be difficult to rotate 

the tire to a position where the code 

could be read and deciphered. The tire’s 

age would then be available as needed 

and the tire could also be identified if 

recalled. 

VII. NHTSA’s Decision: In 

consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA 

finds that Hankook has met its burden 

of persuasion that the subject FMVSS 

No. 139 noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. Accordingly, Hankook’s 

petition is hereby granted, and Hankook 

is exempted from the obligation of 

providing notification of, and a remedy 

for, the noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 

30118 and 30120. 

NHTSA notes that the statutory 

provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to 

file petitions for a determination of 

inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to 

exempt manufacturers only from the 

duties found in sections 30118 and 

30120, respectively, to notify owners, 

purchasers, and dealers of a defect or 

noncompliance and to remedy the 

defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this 

decision only applies to the subject tires 

that Hankook no longer controlled at the 

time it determined that the 

noncompliance existed. However, the 

granting of this petition does not relieve 

tire distributors and dealers of the 

prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, 

or introduction or delivery for 

introduction into interstate commerce of 

the noncompliant tires under their 

control after Hankook notified them that 

the subject noncompliance existed. 

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 

501.8) 

Otto G. Matheke, III, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18953 Filed 9–1–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

[OMB Control No. 2900–0219] 

Agency Information Collection Activity 

Under OMB Review: CHAMPVA 

Benefits—Application, Claim, Other 

Health Insurance, Potential Liability & 

Miscellaneous Expenses 

AGENCY: Veterans Health 

Administration, Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 168 / Thursday, September 2, 2021 / Notices 49413 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 

1995, this notice announces that the 

Veterans Health Administration, 

Department of Veterans Affairs, will 

submit the collection of information 

abstracted below to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and comment. The PRA 

submission describes the nature of the 

information collection and its expected 

cost and burden and it includes the 

actual data collection instrument. 

DATES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. Refer to ‘‘OMB Control 

No. 2900–0219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise 

and Integration, Data Governance 

Analytics (008), 1717 H Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20006, (202) 266–4688 

or email maribel.aponte@va.gov. Please 

refer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0219’’ 

in any correspondence. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501–21. 

Title: CHAMPVA Benefits— 

Application, Claim, Other Health 

Insurance, Potential Liability & 

Miscellaneous Expenses. 

OMB Control Number: 2900–0219. 

Type of Review: Reinstatement with 

change of a previously approved 

collection. 

Abstract: This information collection 

includes several forms, as well as a 

review and appeal process, which are 

used to administer the Civilian Health 

And Medical Program of the Department 

of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA). 

VA Form 10–10d: Application for 

CHAMPVA Benefits 

VA Form 10–7959a: CHAMPVA Claim 

Form 

VA Form 10–7959c: CHAMPVA Other 

Health Insurance (OHI) Certification 

VA Form 10–7959d: CHAMPVA 

Potential Liability Claim 

VA Form 10–7959e: VA Claim for 

Miscellaneous Expenses 

Review and Appeal Process 

Clinical Review 

a. VA Form 10–10d, Application for 

CHAMPVA Benefits, is used to 

determine eligibility of persons 

applying for healthcare benefits under 

the CHAMPVA program in accordance 

with 38 U.S.C. 501 and 1781. 

b. VA Form 10–7959a, CHAMPVA 

Claim Form, is used to adjudicate 

claims for CHAMPVA benefits in 

accordance with 38 U.S.C. Sections 501 

and 1781, and 10 U.S.C. Sections 1079 

and 1086. This information is required 

for accurate adjudication and processing 

of beneficiary submitted claims. The 

claim form is also instrumental in the 

detection and prosecution of fraud. In 

addition, the claim form is the only 

mechanism to obtain, on an interim 

basis, other health insurance (OHI) 

information. 

c. VA Form 10–7959c, CHAMPVA 

Other Health Insurance (OHI) 

Certification, is used to systematically 

obtain OHI information and to correctly 

coordinate benefits among all liable 

parties. Except for Medicaid and health 

insurance policies that are purchased 

exclusively for the purpose of 

supplementing CHAMPVA benefits, 

CHAMPVA is always the secondary 

payer of healthcare benefits (38 U.S.C. 

501 and 1781, and 10 U.S.C. 1086). 

d. VA Form 10–7959d, CHAMPVA 

Potential Liability Claim, provides basic 

information from which potential third 

party liability can be assessed. The 

Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (42 

U.S.C. 2651–2653) mandates recovery of 

costs associated with healthcare services 

related to an injury/illness caused by a 

third party. Additional authority 

includes 38 U.S.C. 501; 38 CFR 1.900 et 

seq.; 10 U.S.C. 1079 and 1086; 42 U.S.C. 

2651–2653; and Executive Order 9397. 

e. VA Form 10–7959e, VA Claim for 

Miscellaneous Expenses, is used to 

adjudicate claims for certain children of 

Korea and/or Vietnam veterans 

authorized under 38 U.S.C., chapter 18, 

as amended by section 401, Public Law 

106–419 and section 102, Public Law 

108–183. VA’s medical regulations 38 

CFR part 17 (17.900 through 17.905) 

establish regulations regarding 

provision of health care for certain 

children of Korea and Vietnam veterans 

and women Vietnam veterans’ children 

born with spina bifida and certain other 

covered birth defects. These regulations 

also specify the information to be 

included in requests for 

preauthorization and claims from 

approved health care providers. 

f. Review and Appeal Process pertains 

to the approval of health care, or 

approval for payment relating to the 

provision of health care, under the 

Veteran Family Member Programs. The 

provisions of chapter 51 of 38 U.S.C. or 

38 CFR 17.276 and 38 CFR 17.904 

establish a review process regarding 

disagreements by an eligible beneficiary 

of a Veteran Family Member Program, 

provider, Veteran, or other 

representative of the Veteran or 

beneficiary with a determination 

concerning provision of health care or a 

health care provider’s disagreement 

with a determination regarding 

payment. The person or entity 

requesting reconsideration of such 

determination is required to submit 

such a request in writing. If such person 

or entity remains dissatisfied with the 

reconsideration determination, the 

person or entity is permitted to submit 

a written request for additional review. 

g. Clinical Review pertains to the 

requirement of VHA to preauthorize 

certain medical services under 38 CFR 

17.273 and 38 CFR 17.902. Clinical 

review determines if services are 

medically necessary and appropriate to 

allow under the Veteran Family Member 

Programs. The person requesting the 

services must submit medical 

documentation or applicable supporting 

material for review. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The Federal Register 

Notice with a 60-day comment period 

soliciting comments on this collection 

of information was published at: 86 FR 

105 on June 3, 2021, pages 29883 and 

29884. 

Affected Public: Individuals and 

households. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 34,548 

total hours. 

VA Form 10–10d—8,963 hours. 

VA Form 10–7959a—9,167 hours. 

VA Form 10–7959c—8,947 hours. 

VA Form 10–7959d—239 hours. 

VA Form 10–7959e—200 hours. 

Review and Appeal Process—6,255 

hours. 

Clinical Review—777 hours. 

Estimated Average Burden per 

Respondent: 

VA Form 10–10d—10 minutes. 

VA Form 10–7959a—10 minutes. 

VA Form 10–7959c—10 minutes. 

VA Form 10–7959d—7 minutes. 

VA Form 10–7959e—15 minutes. 

Review and Appeal Process—30 

minutes. 

Clinical Review—20 minutes. 

Frequency of Response: Once 

annually. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
49414 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 168 / Thursday, September 2, 2021 / Notices 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

180,142 total. 

VA Form 10–10d—53,775. 

VA Form 10–7959a—55,000. 

VA Form 10–7959c—53,680. 

VA Form 10–7959d—2,045. 

VA Form 10–7959e—800. 

Review and Appeal Process—12,510. 

Clinical Review—2,332. 

By direction of the Secretary. 

Dorothy Glasgow, 

VA PRA Clearance Officer, Alt. Office of 

Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance 

Analytics, Department of Veterans Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18952 Filed 9–1–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1