Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Notices 47599 

CFR section/subject Respondent universe Total annual 

responses 

Average time per 

response 

Total annual burden 

hours 

—Notification to engineer that no conductor is on train.704 railroads .............. 5 notifications ............. 10 minutes ................. 1 hour. 

—Notification of denial of certification by 

individuals holding multiple certifications.

704 railroads .............. 10 notices .................. 10 minutes ................. 2 hours. 

242.215—RR Oversight Responsibility 

—RR review and analysis of administration of certification program.704 railroads .............. 44 reviews/analyses .. 40 hours ..................... 1,760 hours. 

—Report of findings by RR to FRA ........ 704 railroads .............. 36 reports ................... 4 hours ....................... 144 hours. 

242.301—Determinations—Territorial qualification and joint operations.320 railroads .............. 1,080 deter ................. 15 minutes ................. 270 hours. 

—Notification by persons who do not 

meet territorial qualification.

320 railroads .............. 500 notices ................ 10 minutes ................. 83 hours. 

242.401—Notification to candidate of information that forms basis for denying certification and candidate response.704 railroads .............. 40 notices + 40 responses.60 minutes/60 minutes 80 hours. 

—Written notification of denial of certification.704 railroads .............. 80 notices .................. 60 minutes ................. 80 hours. 

242.403/405—Criteria for revoking certification; periods of ineligibility 

—Review of compliance conduct ........... 704 railroads .............. 950 reviews ................ 10 minutes ................. 158 hours. 

—Written determination that the most 

recent incident has occurred.

704 railroads .............. 950 written determination.60 minutes ................. 950 hours. 

242.407—Process for Revoking Certification 

—Revocation for violations of section 

242.115(e).

704 railroads .............. 950 revoked certificates.8 hours ....................... 7,600 hours. 

—Immediate suspension of certificate .... 704 railroads .............. 950 suspend certificates.1 hour ......................... 950 hours. 

—Determinations based on RR hearing 

record.

704 railroads .............. 950 decisions ............. 15 minutes ................. 238 hours. 

—Hearing record ..................................... 704 railroads .............. 950 records ................ 30 minutes ................. 475 hours. 

—Written decisions by RR official .......... 704 railroads .............. 950 decisions ............. 2 hours ....................... 1,900 hours. 

—Service of written decision on employee by RR + RR service proof.704 railroads .............. 950 decisions + 950 

proofs.

10 minutes + 5 minutes.238 hours. 

—Written waiver of right to hearing ........ 54,000 Conductors .... 425 waivers ................ 10 minutes ................. 71 hours.

—Revocation of certification based on 

information that another railroad has 

done so.

704 railroads .............. 15 revoked certifications.10 minutes ................. 3 hours. 

—Placing relevant information in record 

prior to suspending certification/convening hearing.

704 railroads .............. 100 updated Records 1 hour ......................... 100 hours. 

Total Estimated Responses: 268,799. 

Total Estimated Total Annual Burden: 

856,406 hours. 

Type of Request: Extension of a 

Currently Approved Collection. 

Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 

1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA 

informs all interested parties that it may 

not conduct or sponsor, and a 

respondent is not required to respond to 

a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. 

Brett Jortland, 

Acting Deputy Chief Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22044 Filed 10–11–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0137; Notice 2] 

Arconic Wheel and Transportation 

Products, Grant of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition. 

SUMMARY: Arconic Wheel and 

Transportation Products, a business 

division of Arconic, Inc., formerly 

known as Alcoa, Inc. (Arconic), has 

determined that certain Alcoa 

aluminum wheels 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). Alcoa, 

Inc. filed a noncompliance information 

report dated November 21, 2016. 

Arconic then petitioned NHTSA on 

December 5, 2016, for a decision that 

the subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. 

ADDRESSES: For further information on 

this decision please contact Kerrin 

Bressant, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

telephone (202) 366–1110. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview: Arconic Wheel and 

Transportation Products (Arconic), has 

determined that certain Alcoa 

aluminum wheels 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 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
47600 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Notices 

Vehicles with a GVWR of more than 

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

Inc. filed a noncompliance information 

report dated November 21, 2016, 

pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports. Arconic then petitioned 

NHTSA on December 5, 2016, 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. 

The notice of receipt of Arconic’s 

petition was published, with a 30-day 

public comment period, on June 5, 2017 

in the Federal Register (82 FR 25908). 

No comments were received. To view 

the petition and all supporting 

documents log onto the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) Web site 

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

follow the online search instructions to 

locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2016– 

0137.’’ 

II. Equipment Involved: 

Approximately 1,975 Alcoa model 

88367X aluminum wheels, size 22.5′′ 

Dia. × 8.25′′, produced for the heavy 

duty truck wheel market, manufactured 

between August 1, 2016, and November 

7, 2016, are potentially involved. 

III. Noncompliance: Arconic explains 

that the noncompliance is that the 

wheel diameter was incorrectly marked 

on the subject wheels as 24.5′′ × 8.25′′, 

when it should have been marked as 

22.5′′ × 8.25′′. This marking error 

overstates the wheel diameter by 2′′. 

Therefore, the subject wheels do not 

meet the requirements of paragraph 

S5.2(b) of FMVSS No. 120. 

IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.2(b) of 

FMVSS No. 120 states in pertinent part: 

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 Arconic’s Petition: 

Arconic 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, Arconic 

submitted the following reasoning: 

1. If the mounting technician relied 

solely on the incorrectly stated 24.5′′ 

diameter stamped on the rim and tried 

to mount a 24.5′′ × 8.25′′ tire, the tire 

will not inflate. Therefore, it would be 

obvious to the mounting technician that 

there is a tire/rim mismatch, because the 

air will immediately escape during 

inflation and no tire/rim seal will ever 

be achieved. Heavy-duty truck rim 

diameter sizes in the U.S. market are in 

increments 19.5′′, 22.5′′ and 24.5′′, so 

any tire diameter other than 22.5′′ will 

simply not mount and/or inflate on the 

mismarked 24.5′′ rim. 

2. All product literature that 

accompanies the mislabeled 24.5′′ × 

8.25′′ aluminum wheels correctly 

identifies the wheel as having a 22.5′′ 

diameter. The part number stamped on 

the wheels correctly associates the 

wheels in catalogs (hard copy and 

electronic) as having a 22.5′′ diameter. 

The vast majority of the affected wheels 

were sold for assembly on new heavyduty semi-tractors and it is believed the 

certification label, tire pressure placard 

and all other literature accompanying 

the vehicle correctly states the required 

wheel diameter as 22.5′′. 

3. The vast majority of the affected 

wheels were sold for assembly on new 

heavy-duty semi-tractors, which means 

the selection of tires and wheels during 

assembly does not require reliance on 

the actual size markings on the wheel. 

Rather, this selection is based upon part 

number matching during the tire/wheel 

subassembly process, and the part 

number descriptions correctly reflect 

the actual wheel size of 22.5′′ × 8.25′′. 

Only one manufacturer, a trailer 

manufacturer, actually noticed the 

mismarking of the rim diameter. The 

remaining manufacturers that undertook 

tire and rim assembly were unaffected 

by rim mismarking. 

4. If a vehicle owner or operator must 

replace one of the affected rims they 

would most likely go to a facility that is 

familiar with tire/wheel replacements 

for heavy-duty trucks. Pursuant to 29 

CFR 1910.177(c) (Employee Training), 

federal regulations require that only 

trained technicians are permitted to 

mount tires and wheels on heavy-duty 

vehicles and it should be obvious to the 

technician when a wheel marking is 

overstated by 2′′. 

5. For rims that have an obvious 

incorrect size marking stamped into the 

wheel, the technician will have to rely 

on another source for the correct rim 

size including, when applicable, the 

certification label, tire pressure placard 

or any other literature to determine the 

correct wheel and tire size for the 

replacement. 

6. Because a tire/rim seal cannot be 

achieved with an overstated 2′′ rim 

diameter, there is no risk to the 

technician during attempted tire 

mounting operations. 

7. All other roll stamp rim marking 

information on the subject rims required 

by S5.2 of FMVSS No. 120 is correct. 

The rim is marked with the correct rim 

width, manufacturer, date of 

manufacture, and DOT. 

8. The agency has previously found to 

be inconsequential a noncompliance 

with the rim marking requirements of 

FMVSS No. 110 Tire selection and rims 

and motor home/recreation vehicle 

trailer load carrying capacity 

information for motor vehicles with a 

GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 

pounds) or less (citing Docket No. 

NHTSA–1999–6685, July 5, 2000). 

9. Arconic is not aware of any crashes 

or injuries associated with this roll 

stamp rim marking issue. 

Arconic states that they have 

corrected the roll stamp for all future 

production. 

Arconic 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’S Decision 

NHTSA’s Analysis: The intent of 

FMVSS No. 120 is to ensure that 

vehicles are equipped with tires of 

adequate size and load rating and with 

rims of appropriate size and type 

designation to handle vehicle loads and 

prevent overloading. 

As discussed by Arconic, in the event 

a technician actually used the incorrect 

rim diameter marking as a size 

determinant for the tire size to mount on 

the rim, the technician would inevitably 

determine that the tire diameter is much 

larger than the actual rim diameter. In 

this case, the tire could never be 

properly mounted to the rim and could 

not be inflated to hold any air pressure. 

Arconic also mentioned that product 

literature provided with the rims, and 

correct part number stamped on the 

rims, can be used to correctly identify 

the rim diameter. NHTSA agrees that 

during the mounting process, if a 

technician were to encounter the 

mismatch issue as discussed above, the 

part number labeled on the rim and the 

product literature could be referenced to 

aid in the determination of the correct 

rim size. 

Consequently, the subject 

noncompliance should not cause any 

unsafe conditions associated with the 

incorrect rim diameter size stamped on 

the wheel. Therefore, NHTSA agrees 

with Arconic that the incorrect rim 

diameter size listed on the wheel does 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
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