41678 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Notices 

I. Overview: Jaguar Land Rover North 

America, LLC (JLR), on behalf of Jaguar 

Land Rover Limited, has determined 

that certain model year (MY) 2012–2018 

Jaguar motor vehicles do not fully 

comply with Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135, Light 

Vehicle Brake Systems. JLR filed a 

noncompliance report dated June 22, 

2017, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 

Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. JLR also 

petitioned NHTSA on July 20, 2017, 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an 

exemption from the notification and 

remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301 on the basis that this 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety. 

This notice of receipt of JLR’s petition 

is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 

30120 and does not represent any 

agency decision or other exercise of 

judgment concerning the merits of the 

petition. 

II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 

126,127 of the following Jaguar motor 

vehicles, manufactured between 

February 8, 2012, and June 19, 2017, are 

potentially involved: 

• 2017–2018 Jaguar F-Pace 

• 2017–2018 Jaguar XE 

• 2017–2018 Jaguar XF 

• 2014–2018 Jaguar F–TYPE 

• 2013–2017 Jaguar XJ 

• 2012–2015 Jaguar XK 

III. Noncompliance: JLR explains that 

the noncompliance is that the brake 

fluid warning statement label on the 

subject vehicles is not permanently 

affixed as required by paragraph 

S5.4.3(a) of FMVSS No. 135. 

Specifically, JLR installed a label that 

fits over the neck of the brake fluid 

reservoir that can be removed when the 

brake fluid reservoir cap is removed. 

IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.4.3(a) of 

FMVSS No. 135 states, in pertinent part: 

S5.4.3 Reservoir labeling. Each vehicle 

equipped with hydraulic brakes shall have a 

brake fluid warning statement that reads as 

follows, in letters at least 3.2 mm (1⁄8 inch) 

high: ‘‘WARNING: Clean filler cap before 

removing. Use only ____fluid from a sealed 

container.’’ (inserting the recommended type 

of brake fluid as specified in 49 CFR 571.116, 

e.g., ‘‘DOT 3.’’) The lettering shall be. . . 

. . . 

(a) Permanently affixed, engraved or 

embossed;. . . 

V. Summary of JLR’s Petition: As 

background, in JLR’s noncompliance 

report, JLR stated that a Product Safety 

and Compliance Committee (PSCC) 

Investigation was opened on June 6, 

2017, following communication from a 

safety compliance engineer from 

NHTSA’s Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance. The communication 

highlighted a concern where the brake 

reservoir label was not permanently 

affixed to the brake fluid reservoir as 

required by FMVSS No. 135, Light 

Vehicle Brake Systems. On June 13, 

2017, JLR’s PSCC concluded that the 

concern should be progressed to the 

Recall Determination Committee (RDC). 

The RDC reviewed all information on 

June 15, 2017, and concluded that the 

issue represented a compliance concern 

to FMVSS No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake 

Systems, but that the condition was 

considered inconsequential and 

requested that a petition for decision of 

inconsequential noncompliance be filed 

with NHTSA. 

JLR described the subject 

noncompliance and stated its belief that 

the noncompliance is inconsequential 

as it relates to motor vehicle safety. 

In support of its petition, JLR 

submitted the following reasoning: 

1. The installed label will not fall off 

or become displaced during normal 

vehicle use or operation. 

2. The installed label provides 

mechanical resistance to being removed. 

3. There is interference between the 

installed label and reservoir filler neck 

such that a minimum of 2mm 

interference exists. 

4. The installed label is only able to 

be removed when the brake fluid 

reservoir cap is displaced which, based 

on routine maintenance schedules, is 

once every 3 years in service. 

5. The filler cap shows clearly the 

specification of brake fluid required. 

6. The filler cap provides clear 

symbols including one for caution and 

one referring to handbook instructions. 

The owner’s handbook descriptions 

indicate the proper brake fluid 

specification to be used in the vehicle. 

7. The installed cap conforms to the 

requirements of ISO9128:2006 which is 

a requirement of UN–ECE Regulation 13 

and 13h. NHTSA has previously granted 

petitions to accept ISO symbols in the 

absence of FMVSS labelling: 

a. Jaguar Land Rover petition 

regarding controls and displays 

including brake system-related telltales 

(FR Vol.78, No. 213 Pg. 66101–66103). 

b. Ford petition regarding controls 

and displays including brake systemrelated telltales (FR Vol. 78, No. 225 Pg 

69931–69932) 

c. Hyundai petition regarding lower 

anchorage identification (FR Vol. 73, 

No. 129 Pg. 38290–38291). 

8. JLR has not received any customer 

complaints on this issue. 

9. There have been no accidents or 

injuries as a result of this issue. 

10. Vehicle production has been 

corrected to fully conform to FMVSS 

No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems, 

S5.4.3(a) with a new filler cap. 

JLR concluded by expressing the 

belief 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. 

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, any 

decision on this petition only applies to 

the subject vehicles that JLR no longer 

controlled at the time it determined that 

the noncompliance existed. However, 

any decision on this petition does not 

relieve vehicle distributors and dealers 

of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for 

sale, or introduction or delivery for 

introduction into interstate commerce of 

the noncompliant vehicles under their 

control after JLR 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) 

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18627 Filed 8–31–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0094; Notice 2] 

Michelin North America, Inc., Denial of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Denial of petition. 

SUMMARY: Michelin North America, Inc. 

(MNA), has determined that certain 

MNA tires do not fully comply with 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires 

for motor vehicles with a GVWR of more 

than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) 

and motorcycles. MNA filed a 

noncompliance report dated September 

1, 2016. MNA then petitioned NHTSA 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Notices 41679 

on September 8, 2016, for a decision 

that the subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. 

ADDRESSES: For further information on 

this decision contact Abraham Diaz, 

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), telephone 

(202) 366–5310, facsimile (202) 366– 

3081. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

Michelin North America, Inc. (MNA), 

has determined that certain MNA tires 

do not fully comply with paragraph 

S6.5(d) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New 

pneumatic tires for motor vehicles with 

a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms 

(10,000 pounds) and motorcycles. MNA 

filed a noncompliance report dated 

September 1, 2016, pursuant to 49 CFR 

part 573, Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. MNA then 

petitioned NHTSA on September 8, 

2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) 

and 30120(h) and their implementing 

regulations at 49 CFR part 556, for an 

exemption from the notification and 

remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301 on the basis that this 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety. 

Notice of receipt of the petition was 

published, with a 30-day public 

comment period, on November 10, 2016 

in the Federal Register (81 FR 79093). 

No comments were received. To view 

the petition and all supporting 

documents log onto the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) Web site 

at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then 

follow the online search instructions to 

locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2016– 

0094.’’ 

II. Tires Involved 

Affected are approximately 184 

Michelin Pilot Power 3 size 180/55ZR17 

M/C (73W) replacement motorcycle tires 

manufactured between April 17, 2016, 

and May 7, 2016. 

III. Noncompliance 

MNA describes the noncompliance as 

the inadvertent omission of the 

markings designating the maximum 

load and corresponding inflation 

pressure for that load, as required by 

paragraph S6.5(d) of FMVSS No. 119. 

IV. Rule Text 

Paragraph S6.5(d) of FMVSS No. 119 

provides, in pertinent part: 

S6.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in 

this paragraph, each tire shall be marked on 

each sidewall with the information specified 

in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this 

section. . . 

(d) The maximum load rating and 

corresponding inflation pressure of the tire, 

shown as follows: 

(Mark on tires rated for single and dual 

load): Max load single __kg (__lb) at __kPa (_

_psi) cold. Max load dual __kg (__lb) at __kPa 

(__psi) cold. 

(Mark on tires rated only for single load): 

Max load __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) 

cold. . . 

V. Summary of MNA’s Petition 

MNA described the subject 

noncompliance and contends that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential for 

motor vehicle safety. 

In support of its petition, MNA 

submitted the following reasoning: 

A. Installation—The subject tires 

provide sidewall markings that include 

the correct industry standard tire size 

identified as ‘‘180/55ZR17 M/C,’’ the 

service description identified as 

‘‘(73W)’’ using an ISO load index and 

speed symbol, and the load range 

identified as Load Range ‘‘B.’’ This 

properly and precisely identifies the tire 

for correct installation. 

B. Inflation Pressure—MNA points 

out that the correct application 

pressures for the front and rear positions 

are identified on the motorcycle vehicle 

placard as required by 49 CFR part 567 

and in the owner’s manual, and these 

sources are referred to specifically in 

information published by NHTSA, 

motorcycle manufacturers, and tire 

manufacturers. The inflation pressures 

furnished by the motorcycle 

manufacturer via these two sources are 

the pressures that provide the load 

capacity and the motorcycle 

manufacturer’s intended ride and 

handling characteristics for the specific 

motorcycle involved. MNA stressed that 

the sidewall marking omitted from the 

tires at issue is not the recommended 

operating inflation pressure and that 

this fact is well known to motorcycle 

owners. 

1. For example, MNA observes that 

NHTSA’s online ‘‘Motorcycle Safety Tips’’ 

specifically refers to the owner’s manual and 

vehicle placard: ‘‘Look in your motorcycle 

owner’s manual to find the right PSI (pounds 

per square inch) of air pressure for your tires. 

Some bike manufacturers also list this 

information on the bike itself. Common 

locations include the swing arm, front fork 

tubes, inside the trunk, and under the seat.’’ 

2. Additionally, MNA argues that the 

Motorcycle Industry Council Tire Guide 

explains, ‘‘Check the air pressure when the 

tires are cold . . . and adjust it according to 

your motorcycle owner’s manual or the tire 

information label on the chain guard, frame, 

or swingarm.’’ 

3. Similarly, Michelin’s Professional 

Motorcycle Tire Guide 2016 states: ‘‘Use the 

inflation pressure recommended by the 

motorcycle manufacturer . . . The proper 

inflation pressures for your motorcycle tires 

are shown in your motorcycle owner’s 

manual.’’ 

4. According to MNA, the applicable 

pressure is also a function of the maximum 

speed capability of the motorcycle, another 

reason that the proper source for tire inflation 

pressure is the motorcycle vehicle placard or 

owner’s manual rather than the tire sidewall. 

5. Michelin’s Professional Motorcycle Tire 

Guide 2016 and the Motorcycle Industry Tire 

Guide both advise not to exceed the pressure 

marked on the sidewall when setting a usage 

pressure. MNA also notes, the recommended 

pressure on the motorcycle vehicle placard 

and the motorcycle owner’s manual 

conforming to 49 CFR 571.120 will never 

exceed the sidewall pressure for a properly 

fitted tire as described above in section ‘‘A’’ 

(Installation). The tire size, load index, speed 

symbol, and load range all provide for proper 

installation. Additionally, MNA states that 

the sidewall pressure is not a ‘‘maximum’’ 

pressure. It is the pressure corresponding to 

the maximum load. For example, Michelin’s 

Professional Motorcycle Tire Guide 2016 

advises that the pressure regulator be set at 

60 psi for mounting motorcycle tires, and the 

Michelin motorcycle Web site FAQ’s explain 

that up to 60 psi of pressure can be used to 

seat beads when mounting motorcycle tires 

and then adjusted to the recommended 

pressure found on the vehicle placard or 

owner’s manual. The sidewall pressure 

corresponding to the maximum load on the 

subject tire is 290 kPa or 42 psi. 

C. Max Load Information—MNA 

argues that the maximum load value 

corresponding to the ISO load index on 

the tire is published in Michelin’s 

Professional Motorcycle Tire Guide 

2016 available online, the Motorcycle 

Industry Council Tire Guide available 

online, as well as a number of retail 

sites. The ISO load index of ‘‘73’’ and 

the designation Load Range ‘‘B’’ that are 

present on the tire provide load 

description information, and along with 

the tire size they provide a clear cross 

reference to the cited publications that 

offer the load value in pounds if needed. 

Again, in MNA’s view, the tire size and 

load range provided are sufficient to 

assure the tire is appropriate for the 

motorcycle and the corresponding 

inflation pressure requirements as a 

function of speed capability are 

displayed on the vehicle’s placard as 

well as the owner’s manual. 

D. Other Markings—MNA notes that 

all other markings conform to the 

applicable regulations. 

E. Performance—The MNA petition 

also observes that the subject tire meets 

all performance requirements of FMVSS 

No. 119. 

MNA concluded by expressing the 

belief that the subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, 

and that its petition for exemption from 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
41680 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2017 / Notices 

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. 

NHTSA’s Decision 

NHTSA’s Analysis: NHTSA has 

reviewed Michelin’s petition and has 

determined that the petitioner has not 

met the burden of persuasion that the 

subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

Specifically, failing to mark the 

maximum load and corresponding 

inflation pressure for that load in both 

Metric and English units on the sidewall 

of the tires puts an enormous burden on 

end users to ensure that the subject tires 

will be properly installed, used, and 

serviced in accordance with the tire’s 

maximum capability. In the FMVSS No. 

119 final rule (Nov. 13, 1973; 38 FR 

31299), the Agency explained the 

purpose of labeling the subject tires 

with maximum load and pressure. The 

final rule states: 

The trucking industry questioned the 

advisability of labeling maximum inflation 

and load rating on the tire because it 

appeared to prohibit the adjustment of 

pressures to road conditions. The purpose of 

the labeling is to . . . warn the user of the 

tire’s maximum capabilities.’’ 

Furthermore, in the same rulemaking, the 

Agency provided relief to manufacturers by 

accepting the commenters’ proposal to have 

the information only required on one side of 

M/C tires: ‘‘Several manufacturers suggested 

that labeling appear on only one side of a tire 

when both sides of the tire, as mounted, will 

be available for inspection. Accordingly, 

motorcycle tires must now be labeled on one 

side wall only, . . . 

The complete lack of maximum load 

and corresponding inflation pressure 

information on the subject Michelin 

motorcycle tires creates a potential 

safety hazard to the end users of these 

tires. NHTSA reiterates that marking 

tires with the maximum load and 

corresponding inflation pressure is 

necessary for achieving the following: 

(A) Proper installation on the vehicle— 

in this case a motorcycle, (B) proper 

inflation pressure even when 

application pressures for the front and 

rear positions are identified on the 

motorcycle vehicle placard or vehicle 

owner’s manual, and (C) proper usage 

because the tire size, speed symbol, and 

load index do not adequately or easily 

convey the maximum load and pressure 

capability of a tire. Tire size, speed 

symbol, and load index are indicators 

that may be useful for technical 

professionals in the field; however, it is 

unreasonable to expect a typical end 

user to identify the maximum load and 

pressure using only the markings of tire 

size, speed symbol, and load index. It is 

far more reasonable to expect the 

vehicle user to overload a tire without 

the explicit guidance provided by the 

required sidewall markings. NHTSA 

believes it is necessary to label the tire 

to ensure the end user is adequately 

informed about the maximum capability 

of the tire. Failing to provide load and 

pressure information, both in English 

and Metric units, presents a safety risk 

because users are deprived the 

information needed to properly install, 

use, and service the tire. 

NHTSA’s Decision: In consideration 

of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that 

MNA has not met its burden of 

persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 

119 noncompliance is inconsequential 

to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, 

NHTSA hereby denies MNA’s petition 

and MNA is consequently obligated to 

provide notification of, and a free 

remedy for, that noncompliance under 

49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120. 

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

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 

501.8) 

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe, 

Acting Associate Administrator, Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18628 Filed 8–31–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

Sanctions Action Pursuant to an 

Executive Order Issued on September 

23, 2001, Titled ‘‘Blocking Property and 

Prohibiting Transactions With Persons 

Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or 

Support Terrorism’’ 

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets 

Control (OFAC) is removing the name of 

one individual, whose property and 

interests in property have been blocked 

pursuant to an executive order issued 

on September 23, 2001, titled ‘‘Blocking 

Property and Prohibiting Transactions 

With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To 

Commit, or Support Terrorism,’’ from 

the list of Specially Designated 

Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN 

List). 

DATES: OFAC’s action described in this 

notice was taken on August 22, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Associate Director for Global Targeting, 

tel.: 202/622–2420, Assistant Director 

for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, 

tel.: 202/622–2490, Assistant Director 

for Licensing, tel.: 202/622–2480, Office 

of Foreign Assets Control, or Chief 

Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 

202/622–2410, Office of the General 

Counsel, Department of the Treasury 

(not toll free numbers). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Availability 

The SDN List and additional 

information concerning OFAC sanctions 

programs are available from OFAC’s 

Web site (www.treas.gov/ofac). 

Notice of OFAC Actions 

The following person is removed from 

the SDN List, effective as of August 22, 

2017. 

Individual 

1. SCHNEIDER, Daniel Martin (a.k.a. 

SCHNEIDER, Martin Daniel), zum 

Gruehlingsstollen 1A, Friedrichstahl 66299, 

Germany; Rosenstrasse 2, Friedrichstahl 

66299, Germany; Petrusstrasse 32, 

Herrensohr Dudweiler, Saarbruecken 66125, 

Germany; DOB 09 Sep 1985; POB 

Neunkirchen, Germany; citizen Germany; 

Passport 2318047793 (Germany); Federal ID 

Card 2318229333; currently incarcerated at 

Schwalmstadt, Germany (individual) [SDGT]. 

Dated: August 22, 2017. 

Andrea Gacki, 

Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets 

Control. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18080 Filed 8–31–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AL–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

Notice of OFAC Sanctions Action 

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets 

Control (OFAC) is publishing the name 

of one person that has been placed on 

OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals 

and Blocked Persons List based on 

OFAC’s determination that one or more 

applicable legal criteria were satisfied. 

All property and interests in property 

subject to U.S. jurisdiction of this 

person are blocked, and U.S. persons are 

generally prohibited from engaging in 

transactions with them. 

DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section for effective date. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

OFAC: Associate Director for Global 

Targeting, tel.: 202–622–2420; Assistant 

Director for Sanctions Compliance & 

Evaluation, tel.: 202–622–2490; 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES