Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Notices 47601 

not have any adverse safety 

implications. 

NHTSA’S Decision: In consideration 

of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that 

Arconic has met its burden of 

persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 

120 noncompliance on the affected 

wheels is inconsequential to motor 

vehicle safety. Accordingly, Arconic’s 

petition is hereby granted and Arconic 

is consequently exempted from the 

obligation of providing notification of, 

and a free remedy for, that 

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 

wheels that Arconic no longer 

controlled at the time it determined that 

the noncompliance existed. However, 

the granting of this petition does not 

relieve equipment distributors and 

dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, 

offer for sale, or introduction or delivery 

for introduction into interstate 

commerce of the noncompliant wheels 

under their control after Arconic 

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. 2017–22110 Filed 10–11–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2017–0016; Notice 2] 

Mack Trucks, Inc., Grant of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition. 

SUMMARY: Mack Trucks, Inc. (MTI), has 

determined that certain model year 

(MY) 2017 Mack heavy duty trucks do 

not fully comply with Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

120, Tire selection and rims and motor 

home/recreation vehicle trailer load 

carrying capacity information for motor 

vehicles with a GVWR of more than 

4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). MTI 

filed a noncompliance information 

report dated February 9, 2017. MTI also 

petitioned NHTSA on February 28, 

2017, and revised its petition on April 

29, 2017, for a decision that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety. 

ADDRESSES: For further information on 

this decision contact Kerrin Bressant, 

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), telephone 

(202) 366–1110, facsimile (202) 366– 

5930. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview: Mack Trucks, Inc. (MTI), 

has determined that certain model year 

(MY) 2017 Mack heavy duty trucks do 

not fully comply with paragraph S5.2(b) 

of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire 

selection and rims and motor home/ 

recreation vehicle trailer load carrying 

capacity information for motor vehicles 

with a GVWR of more than 4,536 

kilograms (10,000 pounds). MTI filed a 

noncompliance report dated February 9, 

2017, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 

Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. MTI also 

petitioned NHTSA on February 28, 

2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) 

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

revised its petition on April 29, 2017, to 

obtain 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 July 20, 2017, in 

the Federal Register (82 FR 33546). 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–2017– 

0016.’’ 

II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 

226 MY 2017 Mack Pinnacle, Granite, 

TerraPro and LR heavy duty trucks, 

manufactured between August 15, 2016, 

and December 12, 2016, are potentially 

involved. 

III. Noncompliance: MTI explains that 

the noncompliance is that the wheels on 

the subject vehicles incorrectly identify 

the rim size as 24.5′′ × 8.25′′ instead of 

22.5′′ × 8.25′′, and therefore do not meet 

the requirements of paragraph S5.2(b) of 

FMVSS No. 120. Specifically, the 

marking error overstates the wheel 

diameter by 2′′. 

IV. Rule Text: paragraph S5.2 of 

FMVSS No. 120 states: 

S5.2 Rim marking. Each rim or, at the 

option of the manufacturer in the case of a 

single-piece wheel, wheel disc shall be 

marked with the information listed in 

paragraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph, 

in lettering not less than 3 millimeters high, 

impressed to a depth or, at the option of the 

manufacturer, embossed to a height of not 

less than 0.125 millimeters . . . 

(b) The rim size designation, and in case 

of multipiece rims, the rim type designation. 

For example: 20 × 5.50, or 20 × 5.5. 

V. Summary of MTI’s Petition: MTI 

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, MTI 

referenced a letter to NHTSA, dated 

December 5, 2016, from Arconic Wheel 

and Transportation Products (Arconic), 

which is the rim manufacturer, and 

provided the following reasoning: 

1. A 24.5′′ inch tire will not seat on 

the rim; therefore, if someone tries to 

mount a 24.5′′ tire to the rim, it will not 

hold air and therefore cannot be 

inflated. 

2. When tires are replaced, the 

technician will select the tire based on 

the size and rating of the tire being 

replaced. When Mack manufactured the 

vehicle, the tire used was a 22.5′′ (i.e., 

the correct size for the rim). Therefore, 

the tires installed by Mack have the 

correct size on the sidewall of the tire. 

3. Mack is required to list the tires 

size and inflation pressures on the 

certification label as required by 49 CFR 

567. The information printed on the 

label is the correct size, a 22.5′′ inch tire 

and reflects the tires that were installed 

when manufactured. The certification 

label is located inside the driver’s door 

and can be easily accessed by the tire 

installer. 

MTI 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. 

To view MTI’s petition analyses in its 

entirety you can visit https://

www.regulations.gov by following the 

online instructions for accessing the 

dockets and by using the docket ID 

number for this petition shown in the 

heading of this notice. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
47602 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Notices 

1 78 FR 70624 (November 26, 2013). 

2Today the CFPB announced that it adopted and 

submitted the CFPB’s Final Rule for publication in 

the Federal Register. https://

www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/ 

rulemaking/final-rules/payday-vehicle-title-andcertain-high-cost-installment-loans/. The CFPB 

issued its notice of proposed rulemaking on payday 

loans in 2016. 81 FR 47864 (July 22, 2016). 

NHTSA Decision 

NHTSA Analysis: MTI explains that 

the noncompliance is that the wheels on 

the subject vehicles incorrectly identify 

the rim size as 24.5′′ x 8.25′′ instead of 

22.5′′ x 8.25′′, and therefore do not meet 

the requirements of paragraph S5.2(b) of 

FMVSS No. 120. Specifically, the 

marking error overstates the wheel 

diameter by 2′′. 

NHTSA has reviewed MTI’s analyses 

that the subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety 

and provides the following analysis: 

When it comes to mating a tire and 

rim combination, it becomes very 

apparent very quickly that either an 

oversized tire on a rim or an undersized 

tire on the same sized rim will not 

properly seat to that rim. In this 

particular case (the former) as MTI has 

mentioned in its petition, if someone 

tries to mount a 24.5′′ inch tire on an 

undersized rim (22.5′′), it will not hold 

air and therefore cannot be inflated. The 

inability to mount the incorrect tire on 

the rim precludes one’s ability to 

actually drive with an incorrect tire-rim 

combination on public roadways. 

Furthermore, FMVSS No. 120 paragraph 

S5.3 requires vehicles be labeled with 

proper tire/rim size combinations. This 

additional information is available to 

provide the vehicle operator or 

technician with the correct tire/rim size 

information. 

NHTSA’s Decision: In consideration 

of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that MTI 

has met its burden of persuasion that 

the FMVSS No. 120 noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. Accordingly, MTI’s 

petition is hereby granted and MTI is 

consequently exempted from the 

obligation to provide notification of, and 

remedy for, the subject noncompliance 

in the affected vehicles 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 

vehicles that MTI no longer controlled 

at the time it determined that the 

noncompliance existed. However, the 

granting of 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 MTI 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. 2017–22111 Filed 10–11–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency 

[Docket ID OCC–2017–0019] 

Rescission of Guidance on 

Supervisory Concerns and 

Expectations Regarding Deposit 

Advance Products 

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency (OCC), Treasury. 

ACTION: Rescission of guidance. 

SUMMARY: The OCC is rescinding its 

supervisory guidance entitled 

‘‘Guidance on Supervisory Concerns 

and Expectations Regarding Deposit 

Advance Products’’ and OCC Bulletin 

2013–40 (collectively, Guidance), which 

address the OCC’s expectations 

regarding the offering of deposit 

advance products by national banks and 

federal savings associations 

(collectively, banks). The OCC is 

rescinding the Guidance in light of the 

adoption of a final rule on payday, 

vehicle title, and certain high-cost 

installment loans by the Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), 

which overlaps with the Guidance, 

resulting in potentially inconsistent 

regulatory guidance for banks. 

DATES: This Guidance is rescinded 

effective October 5, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Reymann, Director, Consumer 

Compliance Policy, (202) 649–5470; 

Steven Jones, Director, Retail Credit 

Risk, (202) 649–6220; Kenneth Lennon, 

Director, Community and Consumer 

Law, (202) 649–6350; Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20219 or, 

for persons who are deaf or hard of 

hearing, TTY, (202) 649–5597. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

In 2013, the OCC issued the Guidance 

to set forth the agency’s expectations 

regarding deposit advance products 

offered by banks.1 A deposit advance 

product is a small-dollar, short-term 

loan or line of credit that a bank makes 

available to a customer whose deposit 

account reflects recurring direct 

deposits. The customer obtains a loan, 

which is to be repaid from the proceeds 

of the next direct deposit. The Guidance 

highlighted potential credit, reputation, 

operational, compliance, and other 

issues associated with deposit advance 

products and encouraged banks to be 

aware of these issues so that banks 

offering these products in response to 

their customers’ short-term, small-dollar 

credit needs did not engage in practices 

that would increase these risks or result 

in the unfair treatment of bank 

customers. 

Since adoption of the Guidance in 

2013, the regulatory and marketplace 

landscapes have changed, and the OCC 

has gained supervisory experience with 

application of the Guidance to deposit 

advance products. Most recently, the 

CFPB adopted a rule entitled ‘‘Payday, 

Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost 

Installment Loans’’ (CFPB’s Final 

Rule),2 regarding short-term, smalldollar loans, which overlaps with the 

Guidance and will therefore apply to 

many of the loans addressed by the 

Guidance. For example, the CFPB’s 

Final Rule includes underwriting 

requirements for covered loans that are 

inconsistent with certain aspects of the 

Guidance. In addition, the CFPB’s Final 

Rule provides for cooling-off periods 

that differ from those set forth in the 

Guidance. Thus, the continuation of the 

Guidance would subject banks to 

potentially inconsistent regulatory 

direction and undue burden as banks 

prepare to implement the requirements 

of the CFPB’s Final Rule. 

In addition, based on the changed 

regulatory and marketplace landscape 

and our supervisory experience noted 

above, the OCC is concerned that banks 

are able to serve consumers’ needs for 

short-term, small-dollar credit. As a 

practical matter, consumers who would 

prefer to rely on banks and thrifts for 

these products may be forced to rely on 

less regulated lenders and be exposed to 

the risk of consumer harm and expense. 

Accordingly, the OCC is rescinding 

the Guidance. In rescinding the 

Guidance, the OCC considered that 

many other OCC guidance documents 

cover key elements of consumer 

lending, and these guidance documents 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES