Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules 65165

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document requests

comments on a petition for rulemaking

jointly filed on behalf of petitioners TV

6, L.L.C., permittee of VHF TV Station

KBCJ, NTSC Channel 6, Vernal, Utah

(BPCT–960919KG), and by

Kaleidoscope Foundation, Inc.,

permittee of VHF TV Station KBNY,

NTSC Channel 6, Ely, Nevada (BPET–

970331LN). Petitioners request the

reallotment of NTSC Channel 6 from

Vernal to Santaquin, Utah and

reallotment of NTSC Channel 6 from Ely

to Caliente, Nevada as the communities’

first local television transmission

services and modification of the their

authorizations accordingly, pursuant to

the provisions of section 1.420(i) of the

Commission’s rules. Coordinates to be

used for NTSC Channel 6 at Santaquin

are North Latitude 39–43–58 and West

Longitude 111–56–34; and those to be

used for NTSC Channel 6 at Caliente are

North Latitude 37–47–00 and West

Longitude 114–30–00. The DTV Table of

Allotments contained in section

73.622(b) of the Commission’s rules is

not affected by the requested

reallotments as there is no paired DTV

channel for either Vernal or Ely.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before January 14, 2002, and reply

comments on or before January 29,

2002.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner’s counsel, as follows:

Mark N. Lipp, Esq., Shook, Hardy &

Bacon, 600 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800,

Washington, DC 20005

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J.

Bertron Withers, Jr., Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No.

01–323, adopted November 14, 2001,

and released November 23, 2001. The

full text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC’s Reference Center (Room CYA257), 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

Qualtex International, Portals II, 425

12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402,

Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202)

863–2893, facsimile 202–863–2898, or

via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding. Members of the public

should note that from the time a Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking is issued until

the matter is no longer subject to

Commission consideration or court

review, all ex parte contacts are

prohibited in Commission proceedings,

such as this one, which involve channel

allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for

rules governing permissible ex parte

contacts. For information regarding

proper filing procedures for comments,

see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Television broadcasting.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Federal Communications

Commission proposes to amend part 73

of Title 47 of the Code of Federal

Regulations as follows:

PART 73—TELEVISION BROADCAST

SERVICES

1. The authority citation for part 73

reads as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and

336.

§ 73.606 [Amended]

2. Section 73.606(b), the Table of TV

Allotments under Utah, is amended by

adding Santaquin, NTSC Channel 6 and

removing NTSC Channel 6 at Vernal.

3. Section 73.606(b), the Table of TV

Allotments under Nevada, is amended

by adding Caliente, NTSC Channel 6+

and removing NTSC Channel 6+ at Ely.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 01–31187 Filed 12–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 573

[Docket No. NHTSA–2001–10856]

RIN 2127–AI29

Motor Vehicle Safety; Disposition of

Recalled Tires

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This proposes a rule

implementing section 7 of the

Transportation Recall Enhancement,

Accountability, and Documentation

(TREAD) Act. Section 7 provides that a

manufacturer’s remedy program for the

replacement of defective or

noncompliant tires shall include a plan

addressing how to prevent, to the extent

reasonably within the manufacturer’s

control, the replaced tires from being

resold for installation on a motor

vehicle, and also how to limit, to the

extent reasonably within the

manufacturer’s control, the disposal of

replaced tires in landfills. Section 7 also

requires the manufacturer to include

information about the implementation

of the plan in quarterly reports to the

Secretary about the progress of any

notification and remedy campaigns.

DATES: Comments: You should submit

your comments early enough to ensure

that Docket Management receives them

not later than February 19, 2002.

ADDRESSES: You should mention the

docket number of this document in your

comments, and submit your comments

in writing to Docket Management, Room

PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590. You may also

submit your comments electronically by

logging onto the Dockets Management

System website at http://dms.dot.gov.

Click on ‘‘Help & Information’’ or

‘‘Help/info’’ to obtain instructions for

filing the document electronically.

Regardless of how you submit your

comments, you should mention the

docket number of this document in your

comments.

You may call Docket Management at

202–366–9324. You may visit Docket

Management from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.,

Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

non-legal issues, contact Jonathan

White, Office of Defects Investigation,

tel. (202) 366–5226. For legal issues,

contact Enid Rubenstein, Office of Chief

Counsel, tel. (202) 366–5263.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On November 1, 2000, the TREAD

Act, Pub. L. 106–414, was enacted. The

statute was, in part, a response to

congressional concerns related to the

tire recall being conducted by

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.

(‘‘Firestone’’) during the summer and

fall of 2000 with respect to safetyrelated defects in about 6.5 million

Firestone ATX and ATX II size P235/

75R15 tires (manufactured at all U.S.

Firestone plants) and Firestone

Wilderness AT tires of that size

manufactured at Firestone’s Decatur,

Illinois plant.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30118(b), NHTSA

may make a final decision that a motor

vehicle or replacement equipment

(including a tire) contains a defect

related to motor vehicle safety or does

65166 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules

not comply with an applicable Federal

motor vehicle safety standard. In

addition, under 49 U.S.C. 30118(c), a

manufacturer of a motor vehicle or

replacement equipment (including a

tire) is required to notify NHTSA if the

manufacturer decides that the vehicle or

equipment contains a defect that is

related to motor vehicle safety or does

not comply with an applicable Federal

motor vehicle safety standard. In either

instance, in the case of tires, the

manufacturer of the defective or

noncompliant tires (including original

equipment tires that are installed on or

sold with new motor vehicles, as well

as replacement tires) is required under

49 U.S.C. 30119 to notify tire owners of

the defect or noncompliance and is

required under 49 U.S.C. 30120(b) to

repair or replace the defective or

noncompliant tires within 60 days of

the notification to owners about the

recall or about the availability of

replacement tires. (This 60-day period

may be extended if replacement tires are

not available promptly.)

Also, pre-TREAD Act law, 49 U.S.C.

30120(d), required the manufacturer to

file with the Secretary a copy of the

manufacturer’s program for remedying a

defect or noncompliance. But section

30120(d) did not require the

manufacturer’s program to include a

plan for the disposition or disposal of

recalled tires that were returned by the

tire owners or purchasers.

Section 7 of the TREAD Act expanded

49 U.S.C. 30120(d) to require a

manufacturer’s remedy program for tires

to include a plan for preventing, to the

extent reasonably within the

manufacturer’s control, the resale of

replaced tires for use on motor vehicles,

as well as a plan for the disposition of

replaced tires, particularly through

methods such as shredding, crumbling,

recycling, recovery, or other ‘‘beneficial

non-vehicular uses,’’ rather than in

landfills. Further, section 7 requires the

manufacturer to include information

about the implementation of its plan in

quarterly reports that it is required to

make to the Secretary about the progress

of its notification and remedy

campaigns.

The TREAD Act authorizes the

Secretary of Transportation (‘‘the

Secretary’’) to issue various rules

relating to a manufacturer’s notification

and remedy program, to carry out

Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United

States Code, which is commonly

referred to as the Safety Act. This

rulemaking authority has been delegated

to NHTSA’s Administrator in 49 CFR

1.50.

In order to implement section 7’s new

requirements concerning manufacturers’

plans to preclude resale and for

disposition of replaced tires, we are

proposing to amend 49 CFR 573.5 and

573.6. Below are a summary and

explanation of the provisions of today’s

proposed rule.

II. Discussion

A. Introduction and Background

1. Reason for TREAD Requirements

a. Need To Prevent Resale of Recalled

Tires

The provision in section 7 of the

TREAD Act that requires manufacturers

to provide plans to prevent the resale of

recalled tires for use on motor vehicles

supplements the pre-TREAD Act ban on

the sale of new defective or

noncompliant motor vehicles or motor

vehicle equipment, unless and until (if

possible) they have been remedied. 49

U.S.C. 30120(i). It also supplements

section 8 of the TREAD Act, which

prohibits the sale or lease of any (new

or used) defective or noncompliant

motor vehicle equipment (including a

tire) for installation on a motor vehicle,

unless and until (if possible) the defect

or noncompliance has been remedied.

49 U.S.C. 30120(j). Finally, it is also

related to section 3(c) of the TREAD Act,

which requires any person who (1)

knowingly and willfully sells or leases

for use on a motor vehicle a defective

tire or a tire not in compliance with

applicable safety standards and (2) has

actual knowledge that the manufacturer

of such tire has notified its dealers of

such defect or noncompliance, to report

that sale or lease to NHTSA. 49 U.S.C.

30166(n). NHTSA has already issued

regulations implementing section

30166(n); see 49 CFR 573.10.

Most tires that are recalled are

unrepairable, and therefore most are

replaced rather than repaired. Section 7

of TREAD recognizes the reality that tire

recalls may result in the creation of

stockpiles of dangerous, unremedied

tires and requires manufacturers to

develop plans to deal with them.

a. Problems Posed by Scrap Tires

Today’s proposed rule would require

manufacturers to develop plans

addressing how they will prevent, to the

extent reasonably within the

manufacturers’ control, recalled tires

from being resold for use on motor

vehicles, and that limit the disposal of

recalled tires in landfills and provide

instead, to the extent reasonably within

the manufacturers’ control, for

disposition by other means, such as

shredding, crumbling, recycling, and

recovery. The proposed rule also would

require manufacturers to include

information about implementation of

their plans in the quarterly reports that

the manufacturers must file with us

under our reporting regulations,49 CFR

573.6.

Defective tires pose a substantial risk

to motor vehicle safety. The Firestone

tires that have been recalled have been

associated with numerous deaths. The

recall included both new tires in stock

and used tires. Many of the remaining

tires had considerable remaining tread

and could have been reused if they had

not been physically altered to preclude

their use on a motor vehicle.

The management and disposition of

tires is an ongoing environmental

concern that can be aggravated by a

safety recall. More than 270 million tires

are scrapped annually in the United

States. Although the 6.5 million tires

involved in last year’s Firestone recall

would in the aggregate amount to a

substantial volume of tires, the recall

has been characterized as representing

‘‘just a drop in the bucket’’ compared to

the numbers of tires disposed of

annually. See ‘‘Recalled Tires Just a

Drop in the Industry Bucket,’’ Recycling

Today, News (October 2000), http://

recyclbroker.com/info-tires.htm. A copy

of this article has been placed in the

docket for this rulemaking.

In addition to being unsightly and

large, stockpiled ‘‘scrap’’ tires may

present serious health and

environmental risks. Tire piles can

collect gas, and they provide breeding

grounds for rodents and mosquitoes.

Whole tires tend to rise in a landfill and

come to the surface, which may

compromise a landfill cover, and allow

water to enter a landfill which would

generate leachate. Tire piles also are

susceptible to fire from arson, lightning,

and even spontaneous combustion. Tire

pile fires pollute the air and are difficult

to extinguish. Water used to extinguish

them becomes polluted with toxic

substances and may pollute

watercourses.

2. State Regulation of Management and

Disposal of Scrap Tires

Because of the environmental risks

posed by scrap tires, many states ban

the disposal of whole scrap tires in

landfills, and 49 of the 50 states have

some form of regulations that cover

scrap tire management, including in

some instances charges for tire disposal

and financial incentives for using scrap

tires in other products. These state laws

and regulations are summarized briefly

in a booklet published by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(‘‘EPA’’), State Scrap Tire Programs: A

Quick Reference Guide: 1999 Update

(EPA–530–99–002) (August 1999). This

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules 65167

booklet presents a matrix that

summarizes each state’s scrap tire

programs and regulations, provides

information about how to contact state

scrap tire program managers, and

describes grants and other programs that

are intended to improve scrap tire

disposal and recycling and reduction. A

copy of this booklet has been placed in

the docket for this rulemaking action; it

is also available at EPA’s website: (http:/

/www.epa.gov) . This is included in the

docket as illustrative background

material and not as an official statement

or interpretation of applicable legal

requirements.

3. Possible Uses for Scrap Tires

Today’s steel-belted radial tires are

not biodegradable and are difficult to

dispose of or recycle, because they are

made of a mixture of fabric, steel,

carbon black, and several types of

natural and synthetic rubbers.

According to the U.S. Department of

Energy (‘‘DOE’’), estimates of the

number of ‘‘scrap’’ tires in stockpiles

around the United States range from 500

million to three billion. See DOE,

Consumer Energy Information: EEC

Reference Briefs, http://

www.eren.doe.gov/consumerinfo/

refbriefs/ee9/html, which has been

placed in the docket for this rulemaking

action). Additional environmental

information relevant to the subject of

this rulemaking is available on the

Scrap Tire Management Council

Website and on the Website of Scrap

Tire News (http://

www.scraptirenews.com/archive.html),

published by the Recycling Research

Institute of Suffield. CT.

The need to develop uses for ‘‘scrap’’

tires has been recognized for many

years, by government agencies and by

the tire industry, which has established

a Scrap Tire Management Council, a

nonprofit organization that is devoted to

expanding the market for scrap tires.

(The council’s Website address is http:/

/www.rma.org/scraptires/

scraptires.html). Section 7 of the TREAD

Act recognizes this same need.

Another EPA booklet, Summary of

Markets for Scrap Tires (EPA/530–SW–

90–0748 (October 1991)) (‘‘EPA Market

Summary’’), describes potential market

uses for scrap tires. These uses include

the manufacture of crumb rubber, which

may be incorporated into asphalt

pavement, into rubber products such as

floor mats, vehicle mud guards and

carpet padding, and into plastic

products such as floor mats and

adhesives, or processed further into

reclaimed rubber, which is made by

mixing crumb rubber with water, oil

and chemicals and heating the mixture

under pressure. Crumb rubber also can

be used in railroad crossings. Shredded

tires can be used as bulking agents in

the composting of wastewater treatment

sludge. Chipped tires can be used for

playground gravel substitutes and

lightweight road fill material. Whole or

partial scrap tires also can be used for

artificial reefs, breakwaters, erosion

control, playground equipment,

commercial fishing equipment, and

highway crash barriers. See ‘‘EPA

Market Summary,’’ pp. 8–9. This

booklet has been placed in the docket

for this rulemaking action. See also A.

Moorse, ‘‘Recycled rubber goods maker

moves into production stage,’’ Capital

District Business Review, Sept. 2, 2000.

A hard copy of this article has been

placed in the docket for this rulemaking

action; it also is available at http://

albany.bcentral.com/albany/stories/

20000/09/04/story3.html.

Scrap tires can also be used as fuel.

They represent a potentially significant

energy source, because they have a heat

value slightly higher than that of coal

(EPA Market Summary, p. 5) and they

are comparable to or better than coal in

terms of emissions of some pollutants.

See L.Chubb, ‘‘Firestone recall: Where

have all the tires gone?’’ Environmental

News Network (‘‘ENN’’) , 9/20/2000

(citing statement of John Serumgard of

the Scrap Tire Management Council).

Power plants, tire manufacturing plants,

cement kilns, and pulp and paper mills

have used tires as fuel. Usually they

burn tires that have been shredded into

chunks (also known as tire-derived-fuel,

or ‘‘tdf’’), because they do not have the

capability to burn whole tires. Some

plants can produce their own tdf in

furnaces; others can use tdf prepared by

others. According to one source, last

year, a total of 110 electricity generating

facilities in the U.S. held permits to

burn tires. See Chubb, ‘‘Firestone recall

***’’, supra. A hard copy of this

article has been placed in the docket for

this rulemaking action; it also is

available from ENN’s website (http://

www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2000/

09/09202000/tires—31672.asp?P=2).

B. Who Would be Required to Comply

with the Requirements to file Programs

and Reports about Disposition and

Disposal of Recalled Tires?

We are proposing that the rule’s

requirements apply to all manufacturers

that conduct tire recalls, including

vehicle manufacturers that conduct

recalls to correct defects in their

vehicles in which the remedy is the

replacement of tires.

TREAD section 7’s amendment to

subsection 30120(d) provides that, for a

remedy involving the replacement of

tires, the manufacturer shall include a

plan addressing how to prevent

replaced tires from being resold for use

on motor vehicles or disposed of in

landfills. In this amendment, Congress

added these requirements to the preexisting 30120(d) requirement that a

manufacturer file with the Secretary a

copy of the manufacturer’s program for

remedying a defect or noncompliance.

In this context, the use of the term

‘‘manufacturer’’ in section 7 indicates

that the term applies to all

manufacturers that conduct recalls of

tires under the Safety Act to correct

safety-related defects or

noncompliances with applicable

standards.

Tires are motor vehicle equipment.

With respect to the recall provisions of

the Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30118–30121,

by regulation tires are considered as

replacement equipment, even if they

were installed on a motor vehicle at the

time of first sale. 49 CFR 579.4(b)(2).

Therefore, tire manufacturers have the

duty to conduct notification and remedy

campaigns to address defective or

noncompliant tires, including tires

installed on new vehicles. See 49 CFR

579.5(b). Tire brand name owners, such

as retail chain stores that sell tires under

their own ‘‘private labels’’ or ‘‘house

labels’’ are also considered

manufacturers (49 U.S.C. 30102(b)(1)(E))

and have the same defect and

noncompliance reporting requirements

as manufacturers under 49 CFR

573.3(d). All of these would be required

to file reports required under the

proposed rule, if their tires were found

to be defective or noncompliant.

In rare circumstances, vehicle

manufacturers also may conduct recall

campaigns regarding tires installed on

their new vehicles. For example, Ford

Motor Company (Ford) recently

announced a recall to replace tires on

MY 2002 Ford Explorer vehicles whose

sidewalls had been cut during the

vehicle assembly process. Because the

tire disposition problem also affects

tires that are removed during these

recalls, the proposed rule also applies to

vehicle manufacturers that initiate tire

recalls.

C. What Elements Would the

Manufacturers’ Plans Address?

1. Summary

We are proposing to require

manufacturers to include information

about their plans for incapacitating and

disposing of recalled tires in their

remedy programs, and to require that

manufacturers implement these plans.

We are proposing that manufacturers’

plans address, at a minimum, three

65168 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules

major issues: (1) Ways of assuring that

the entities replacing the tires are aware

of legal prohibitions on the sale of the

defective or noncompliant tires under

the Safety Act, (2) methods to impair

recalled tires so that they cannot be

used on a vehicle, and (3) the

disposition of recalled tires, consistent

with applicable laws and in ways that

minimize their deposit in landfills.

NHTSA believes that the extent of the

manufacturer’s control over recalled

tires likely would vary, depending on

the nature of the manufacturer’s

relationship with each of the facilities

that replace the recalled tires, which

may range from wholly-owned and

franchised tire dealers to independent

tire dealers, motor vehicle dealers, and

service stations. We are proposing that

where the manufacturer controls the tire

outlet, the manufacturer direct proper

disposition of the tire. Where the

manufacturer does not have control, we

are proposing that the manufacturer

provide informational materials to the

outlets, including information about the

legal prohibitions on the resale of the

tires.

We are proposing ‘‘exceptions

reporting’’, by manufacturer-controlled

tire outlets to manufacturers monthly

and by manufacturers to NHTSA in

quarterly reports filed pursuant to 49

CFR 573.6. These reports would identify

the aggregate number of recalled tires

which the manufacturer becomes aware

have not been rendered unsuitable for

resale for installation on a motor vehicle

in accordance with the manufacturer’s

plan; the aggregate number of recalled

tires which the manufacturer becomes

aware have been disposed of in

violation of applicable state and local

laws and regulations; and a description

of any such failures of tire outlets to act

in accordance with the manufacturer’s

plan, including an identification of the

outlets in question.

2. Legislative Background

As described above, section 7 of the

TREAD Act provides for two

independent plans for the disposition of

recalled tires: (1) Plans for the

restriction of the resale of recalled tires

and (2) plans for the limitation of the

disposal of recalled tires in landfills.

Each may be qualified by the degree of

the manufacturer’s control over the tire

replacement process. The first of these

provisions was addressed originally in

proposed section 6 of the House Bill

underlying the TREAD Act, ‘‘Sales of

Replaced Equipment,’’ which would

have amended 49 U.S.C. 30120 by

adding a requirement, at subsection (d),

for the manufacturer to have a plan

addressing how to prevent replaced tires

from being sold for installation on motor

vehicles, unless they had been

remedied, to the extent that the

manufacturer could reasonably control

such resales. See H.R. Report No. 106–

954, 106th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 4, 15.

This provision did not address the issue

of how to dispose of the unremedied

tires, nor did any other part of the

original bill.

The first version of the ‘‘anti-landfill’’

portion of section 7 of the TREAD Act,

which was intended to preclude

disposition of recalled tires in public

landfills, was proposed as amendment

1(k) to H.R. 5164, offered by

Congressman Pallone on October 5,

2000. This proposed amendment would

have provided that ‘‘[n]o person may

dispose of any [recalled tire] except in

a fashion that protects the public health

and safety. Disposal of such tires in a

public landfill shall not be considered

adequate protection of the public’s

health and safety.’’ Prior to passage of

the House bill (H.R. 5164), this

amendment was withdrawn. See H.R.

Rep. No. 106–954, supra, at p. 9.

Eventually, section 6 of the H.R. 5164

was expanded to include a restriction

on the disposition of recalled tires in

landfills. The ‘‘reasonable extent of

control’’ language from section 6 was

applied to the ‘‘anti-landfill’’ provision

as well as to the ‘‘no resale without

repair’’ provision; the references to

‘‘protection of the public health and

safety’’ and the direct prohibition of use

of recalled tires in landfills were

dropped from the ‘‘anti-landfill’’

provision. Both provisions, with

identical reporting requirements, appear

in section 7 of the TREAD Act. The

legislative history does not provide

further explanation of Congress’ action.

3. The August 2000 Firestone Recall

Firestone prepared a Recall Fact Sheet

(‘‘Fact Sheet’’), dated August 30, 2000,

which was intended to provide Federal,

State and local authorities with

information about the scrap tires

collected during the company’s August

2000 recall. The Fact Sheet contained a

general description of the procedures in

place at the 13,000 authorized service

centers that were replacing recalled tires

to manage the proper disposition of

those tires. It outlined the following four

elements: (1) To ensure that recalled

tires are not reused on vehicles, the tires

are to be rendered useless by drilling a

hole in or cutting through the sidewall

upon removal from the vehicle; (2) the

company arranged with its current scrap

tire vendors for additional pickups of

scrap tires from company-owned stores

and arranged with its ‘‘normal

transportation vendors’’ to visit

Firestone stores and authorized service

centers and remove scrap tires; (3)

recalled scrap tires are being transported

directly to licensed and permitted

recycling facilities or to Firestone

distribution facilities where they are

checked to ensure that they have been

rendered useless and then transported

to licensed and permitted recycling

facilities; and (4) ‘‘[t]he majority of the

recalled tires are being shredded or

beneficially reused as fuel for power

plants or cement kilns, or ground into

crumb rubber for recycling into a variety

of useful products such as playground

mats, asphalt, and soaker irrigation

hoses.’’ It also stated that ‘‘none of the

recalled tires are being redistributed or

retreaded.’’ This Fact Sheet is available

in the docket for this rulemaking.

4. Plan Elements

We are proposing that manufacturers’

plans include three elements.

First, the plans would have to address

legal requirements established by the

Safety Act. In addition to the

notifications of the existence of a defect

or noncompliance required under 49

U.S.C. 30118–30119, at a minimum

manufacturers would be required to

notify all entities that are authorized to

replace the tires in question, including

their owned stores, franchised dealers,

and distributors, as well as independent

dealers, about the prohibitions and

notification requirements in the Safety

Act as they apply to recalled tires. This

includes the ban on the sale of new

defective or noncompliant tires (49

U.S.C. 30120(i), see generally 66 FR

38247 et seq. (July 23, 2001)); the

prohibition on the sale of new and used

defective and noncompliant tires (49

U.S.C. 30120(j), see generally 66 FR

38247 et seq. (July 23, 2001)); and the

duty to notify NHTSA of any sale of a

new or used recalled tire for use on a

motor vehicle (49 U.S.C. 30166(n)), see

generally 49 CFR 573.10, 66 FR 38159

et seq. (July 23, 2001)). The

manufacturer would have to provide

informational materials on the

prohibitions and notification

requirements to all authorized

replacement outlets. For the tire outlets

that are company-owned or otherwise

subject to the control of the

manufacturer, the manufacturer would

also be required to provide written

direction to the person in charge of each

outlet to comply with the law and to

notify all employees involved in

replacing, handling, or disposing of

recalled tires of the requirements.

Second, manufacturers would be

required to set forth their programs to

assure, insofar as possible, that the

recalled tires are not resold for

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules 65169

installation on a motor vehicle. As

above, company-owned and other stores

controlled by the company would be

directed to permanently alter the tires so

that they could not be used on vehicles.

This could include, for example,

drilling substantial (e.g. 1⁄2 inch) holes

in the sidewalls, cutting the tire beads,

or sawing the tires in half. To ensure

that this alteration is performed, we are

also proposing that stores be directed to

do it before the end of the business day

on which the recalled tire has been

removed from the vehicle. We seek

comments on whether this time period

is sufficient or whether, and why, a

different time period should be

specified. The manufacturer would have

to provide authorized tire outlets that it

does not control with guidance on how

to permanently alter the tires so that

they could not be used on vehicles and

request them to do that promptly.

Third, manufacturers would be

required to describe their plans aimed at

limiting the disposal of recalled tires in

landfills and, instead, channeling them

into a category of positive reuse

(shredding, crumbling, recycling, and

recovery) or another alternative

beneficial non-vehicular use. The

proposed rule would require that the

manufacturers’ plans provide that

company-controlled outlets dispose of

all recalled tires in accordance with

applicable state and/or local laws and

regulations. We are further proposing

that manufacturers provide directions to

their stores and guidance to

independent dealers about disposition

of tires in a manner that, to the extent

possible, avoids landfilling.

We seek comments on whether to

require manufacturers to provide outlets

that are authorized to replace tires with

information that summarizes the

applicable laws and regulations

regarding disposal of tires in their

jurisdictions and that identifies

reputable tire collection and

transportation contractors as well as

facilities in their areas that would

accept unrepairable recalled tires for a

beneficial use. We believe that this

information would be useful to outlets

that replace recalled tires, but we do not

know the extent to which they already

have it. We assume that some

manufacturers already provide such

information, but we do not know how

many do so or the types of information

that are provided. We are interested in

comments on whether providing this

information has proved useful to

manufacturers and their dealers and on

the extent of the burden that such a

requirement would create.

It is possible that manufacturers could

include conditions governing tire

disposition in their contracts for supply

of replacement tires to independent

outlets. If this were done, it would help

to assure appropriate disposition of

recalled tires by outlets not controlled

by the manufacturer. Because we do not

know whether manufacturers’ past and/

or existing contracts contain restrictions

or other provisions with respect to the

re-use and disposition of recalled tires,

the proposed rule does not address this

topic. We seek comments on this issue,

as well as on whether conditions could

be included in the future and what they

would be.

In addition, manufacturers would be

required to implement their plans for

conducting programs to ensure that

recalled tires are rendered unsuitable for

installation on a motor vehicle for resale

and for limiting the disposal of recalled

tires in landfills.

We seek comments on the above

proposal for plans and, depending on

the comments, may modify the plan

requirements. If you suggest additional

items, please include in your comments

information about the associated costs.

5. Quarterly Reporting

Section 7 provides that we must

require manufacturers to ‘‘include

information about the implementation

of such plan with each quarterly report

to the Secretary regarding the progress

of any notification [and] remedy

campaigns.’’ The contents of these

quarterly reports are currently described

in 49 CFR 573.6.

In order to minimize administrative

burdens on manufacturers, we do not

plan to require that manufacturers

include in their quarterly reports the

number of recalled tires that have been

rendered unsuitable for resale on motor

vehicles or the number of recalled tires

that have been disposed of by various

means. Instead, we propose to require

‘‘exceptions reporting’’ under which

manufacturers must advise us of only

those instances of which they become

aware in which their plans were not

followed. The required quarterly reports

from manufacturers to us would include

the aggregate number of recalled tires

which the manufacturer becomes aware

have not been rendered unsuitable for

resale for installation on a motor vehicle

in accordance with the manufacturer’s

plan and the aggregate number of

recalled tires which the manufacturer

becomes aware have been disposed of in

violation of applicable state and local

laws and regulations. The manufacturer

would also be required to describe any

such failures of tire outlets to act in

accordance with the directions in the

manufacturer’s plan, including an

identification of the outlet(s) in

question. To permit manufacturers to

report this information in a timely

fashion, the proposal would require

manufacturer-controlled outlets that

dispose of tires to report the same

categories of information monthly to the

manufacturer. We seek comments on

effective reporting mechanisms and on

the burdens that such reporting would

impose on the outlets.

D. What Role Does NHTSA Intend to

Play With Respect to the Manufacturers’

Plans for the Disposition of Tires?

Under today’s proposal, NHTSA’s role

with respect to reviewing the

manufacturers’ plans for the disposition

of recalled tires would be limited to

examining the manufacturers’ plans,

programs, and reports to see whether

they contain the required items of

information. We believe that our list of

required reporting elements is

sufficiently comprehensive and specific

to ensure that the plans will effectuate

Congressional objectives. Also, the

proposed rule would require that the

manufacturers’ plans demonstrate that

they have directed the entities that are

replacing recalled tires to dispose of

them in accordance with applicable

laws. We note that in virtually every

state, the disposition of used tires

already is subject to regulation under

State and/or local statutes and

regulations. However, we do not have

the resources or the expertise to review

the manufacturers’ characterizations of

applicable requirements under those

environmental laws. Of course, the

failure of a manufacturer to implement

its plan in accordance with its terms

would constitute a violation of the

Safety Act.

III. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

We have considered the impact of this

proposed rulemaking action under E.O.

12866 and the Department of

Transportation’s regulatory policies and

procedures. This rulemaking was not

reviewed under E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory

Planning and Review.’’ This rulemaking

is not considered ‘‘significant’’ under

the Department of Transportation’s

regulatory policies and procedures. The

impacts of this rule are expected to be

so minimal as not to warrant

preparation of a full regulatory

evaluation because this provision

essentially would require only the

supplementing of reports that

manufacturers already must file with

limited information about the

disposition of recalled tires.

65170 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules

We estimate that the additional

economic impact of this rule upon

manufacturers would be small.

Manufacturers already assume the costs

of the tire recalls that they conduct.

They already are required by our

regulations to notify dealers of recalls

and to file plans and quarterly reports

about their recalls with our Office of

Defects Investigation (ODI). The

additional notification and reporting

elements that this rule would add

would be very limited and wholly

descriptive. They would not impose

significant costs on manufacturers.

In general, the radial tires that are in

widespread use today are far safer than

older technology tires and are subject to

few significant recalls. Although the two

recalls recently conducted by

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. of Firestone

ATX and Wilderness AT tires were very

large, this is unusual. In the 1980s and

1990s, there were relatively few recalls

of large numbers of tires. In the past five

years, the average number of tire recalls

per year was five, the average

population of recalled tires per year was

28,389, and the average recall involved

5,678 tires, excluding the

aforementioned Bridgestone/Firestone

recalls and a Cooper Tire recall (No.

99T–005), which covered only two (2)

tires. (This excludes recalls to correct

labeling errors.) Therefore, we do not

anticipate that there will be large

numbers of tire recalls for which

manufacturers would be required to file

programs and plans under our proposed

rule.

Finally, this rule essentially would

require manufacturers to take steps to

facilitate compliance by entities that

replace recalled tires with applicable

state and local laws regarding tire

disposition. Since it is likely that these

entities already comply with applicable

requirements for disposal of returned

tires, this rule would not add any

substantive burdens or compliance

costs. Even in the unlikely event of

complete disregard of applicable

disposal requirements (in which case

100% of the cost of compliance might

be viewed as a cost of this rule), the

additional costs for recycling 100% of

the tires recalled annually would be

$141,945 for the tire industry as a

whole, or $28,390 per average tire recall

(assuming 28,389 tires recalled

annually, or 5,678 tires recalled per

average tire recall, multiplied by $5.00

(including $2.00 to incapacitate each

recalled tire, $1.00 to collect each

recalled tire, and $2.00 to recycle each

recalled tire)). For these reasons, we

believe that the additional economic

effect of this rule would be minimal.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

We have also considered the impacts

of this notice under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. For the reasons

discussed above under E.O. 12866 and

the DOT Policies and Procedures, I

certify that this proposed rule would not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

The primary impact of this proposed

rule would be felt by the major tire

manufacturers, which are not small

entities. This impact would be minor,

since it primarily would involve adding

a description of plans for incapacitating

and disposing of recalled noncompliant

or defective tires to their remedy

programs, notifying affected retail

outlets of the plans, and providing

minimal reporting on the plans in the

quarterly reports that manufacturers

already must file with NHTSA. We

estimate this cost at $1.00 per tire

manufacturer per affected retail outlet,

but the cost could well be less because

manufacturers may already be including

such descriptions in their notices to

dealers.

Disposal requirements would be

governed by applicable State and local

laws and regulations. It is likely that

manufacturers and entities that replace

tires already are complying with

applicable requirements for tire

disposal. If not, manufacturers, who we

understand currently pay for tire recalls,

would incur the costs associated with

tire disposal, e.g. the costs of

transporting disabled tires and the costs

of recycling the tires. We estimate these

costs at approximately $1.00 per tire for

transportation and $2.00 per tire for

recycling.

This proposed rule could also have an

impact on the nation’s 3,500 tire

dealers, many of which are small

entities. If they do not comply with

applicable requirements for tire

disposal, manufacturer-controlled tire

dealers would incur the costs of

monthly ‘‘exceptions reporting’’ to

manufacturers of any instances in which

the dealer did not comply with the

manufacturer’s plan for disposing of

recalled tires. We estimate these

reporting costs at $1.00 per affected

dealer per recall. Each dealer could also

incur a one-time cost for obtaining

equipment to incapacitate tires so that

the tires cannot be resold to the public.

The one time-cost would likely range

between $70.00 (to purchase a power

drill and a drill bit) and $95.00 (to

purchase a cutoff saw and blade(s)) per

affected dealer, or a maximum of

between $245,000 and $332,500,

assuming that each of the 3,500 dealers

purchases a new drill and bit or cutoff

saw and blade. We believe that many

dealers already own such equipment

and that therefore the maximum

aggregate one-time cost would be far

lower. Also, we note that, because not

every dealer is involved in a tire recall

every year, the aggregate one-time cost

would be incurred over a multi-year

time period.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

We have reviewed this proposal for

the purposed of compliance with the

National Environmental Policy Act (42

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and determined that

it would not have a significant impact

on the quality of the human

environment. The proposed rule would

not require manufacturers to conduct

any recalls beyond those that they

already are required to conduct. The

sale of recalled tires is prohibited by

other provisions in the Safety Act.

Disposal requirements are already

governed by other State laws and

regulations.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule would impose

new collection of information burdens

within the meaning of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C.

chapter 35). However, those burdens

should be minimal. Manufacturers

already are required by our regulations

to file plans and quarterly reports about

tire recalls with our ODI. There would

be an incremental burden of adding to

their descriptions of their programs.

Even this impact would be minor, since

it only would involve adding a

description of plans for incapacitating

and disposing of recalled noncomplying

or defective tires to their remedy

programs and providing minimal

reporting on the plans in the quarterly

reports that manufacturers already must

file with NHTSA. The additional

reporting elements that this proposed

rule would require of manufacturers and

of manufacturer-controlled outlets that

implement recalls, i.e. periodic

‘‘exceptions reporting’’ of aggregate

numbers of recalled tires that have not

been incapacitated for use or that have

been disposed of unlawfully, describing

any failure to comply with the

manufacturer’s plan to render tires

unsuitable for installation on a motor

vehicle for resale and any failure to

comply with the disposal requirements

of applicable state and local laws and

regulations of which the manufacturer

becomes aware, would be very limited

and primarily descriptive. We believe

that compliance with the proposed rule

would not impose significant additional

costs or burdens either on the

manufacturers that conduct the tire

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules 65171

recalls or on the manufacturercontrolled outlets that implement them.

In furtherance of the recognition in

section 7 that the manufacturer’s ability

to influence the recalls will vary

according to the degree to which it

controls the outlets that carry out the

recalls, we do not propose to require

even this limited ‘‘exceptions reporting’’

by manufacturers with respect to outlets

that the manufacturer does not control.

Because this proposed rule would

impose information collection

requirements, albeit minimal, as that

term is defined by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) in 5

CFR part 1329, we plan to submit the

proposed requirements to OMB for its

approval, as required by the PRA. We

seek comments on the information

collection burdens associated with this

proposed rule.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

Executive Order 13132 on

‘‘Federalism’’ requires us to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input’’ by State

and local officials in the development of

‘‘regulatory policies that have

federalism implications.’’ The E.O.

defines this phrase to include

regulations ‘‘that have substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’ This

proposed rule, which would require that

manufacturers include a plan for

disposal of recalled tires in their remedy

programs under either section 30118(b)

or 30118(c) of the Safety Act, will not

have substantial direct effect on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

E.O. 13132. This rulemaking does not

have those implications because it

applies directly only to manufacturers

who are required to file a remedy plan

under sections 30118(b) or 30118(c),

rather than to the States or local

governments, and because it directs

manufacturers to file plans that conform

with applicable state and/or local

requirements.

F. Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule would not have a

retroactive or preemptive effect. Judicial

review of the rule may be obtained

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section

does not require that a petition for

reconsideration be filed prior to seeking

judicial review.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires

agencies to prepare a written assessment

of the cost, benefits and other effects of

proposed or final rules that include a

Federal mandate likely to result in the

expenditure by State, local or tribunal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of more than $100

million annually. Because this rule

would not have a $100 million annual

effect, no Unfunded Mandates

assessment is necessary and one will

not be prepared.

H. Plain Language

Executive Order 12866 and the

President’s memorandum of June 1,

1998, require each agency to write all

rules in plain language. Application of

the principles of plain language

includes consideration of the following

questions:

—Have we organized the material to suit

the public’s needs?

—Are the requirements in the rule

clearly stated?

—Does the rule contain technical

language or jargon that is not clear?

—Would a different format (grouping

and order of sections, use of headings,

paragraphing) make the rule easier to

understand?

—Would more (but shorter) sections be

better?

—Could we improve clarity by adding

tables, lists, or diagrams?

—What else could we do to make the

rule easier to understand?

If you have any responses to these

questions, please include them in your

comments on this rule.

IV. Submission of Comments.

A. How Can I Influence NHTSA’s

Thinking on This Rule?

In developing this notice of proposed

rulemaking, we tried to address the

anticipated concerns of all our

stakeholders. Your comments will help

us decide what to include in the rule

and to improve the proposed rule. We

invite you to provide different views on

it, new approaches we have not

considered, new data, how this rule may

affect you, or other relevant information.

Your comments will be most effective if

you follow the suggestions below:

Explain your views and reasoning as

clearly as possible.

• Provide solid information to

support your views.

• If you estimate potential numbers or

reports or costs, explain how you

arrived at the estimate.

• Tell us which parts of the rule you

support, as well as those with which

you disagree.

• Provide specific examples to

illustrate your concerns.

• Offer specific alternatives.

• Refer your comments to specific

sections of the rule, such as the units or

page numbers of the preamble, or the

regulatory sections.

• Be sure to include the name, date,

and docket number with your

comments.

B. How Do I Prepare and Submit

Comments?

Your comments must be written and

in English. To ensure that your

comments are correctly filed in the

Docket, please include the docket

number of this document in your

comments.

Your comments must not be more

than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21.) We

established this limit to encourage you

to write your primary comments in a

concise fashion. However, you may

attach necessary additional documents

to your comments. There is no limit on

the length of the attachments.

Please submit two copies of your

comments, including the attachments,

to Docket Management at the address

given above under ADDRESSES.

Comments may also be submitted to

the docket electronically by logging onto

the Docket Management System website

at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ‘‘Help &

Information’’ or ‘‘Help/Info’’ to obtain

instructions for filing the document

electronically.

C. How can I be Sure That my

Comments Were Received?

If you wish Docket Management to

notify you upon its receipt of your

comments, enclose a self-addressed,

stamped postcard in the envelope

containing your comments. Upon

receiving your comments, Docket

Management will return the postcard by

mail.

D. How do I Submit Confidential

Business Information?

If you wish to submit any information

under a claim of confidentiality, you

should submit three copies of your

complete submission, including the

information you claim to be confidential

business information, to the Chief

Counsel (NCC–30), NHTSA, at the

address given above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you

should submit two copies, from which

you have deleted the claimed

confidential business information, to

Docket Management at the address

given above under ADDRESSES. When

65172 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules

you send a comment containing

information claimed to be confidential

business information, you should

include a cover letter setting forth the

information specified in our

confidential business information

regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

E. Will the Agency Consider Late

Comments?

We will consider all comments that

Docket Management receives before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above under

DATES. To the extent possible, we will

also consider comments that Docket

Management receives after that date. If

Docket Management receives a comment

too late for us to consider it in

developing a final rule (assuming that

one is issued), we will consider that

comment as an informal suggestion for

future rulemaking action.

F. How can I Read the Comments

Submitted by Other People and Other

Materials Relevant to this Rulemaking?

You may view the materials in the

docket for this rulemaking on the

Internet. These materials include

background information on the use of

tires in landfills and written comments

submitted by other interested persons.

You may read them at the address given

above under ADDRESSES. The hours of

the Docket are indicated above in the

same location.

You may also see the comments and

materials on the Internet. To read them

on the Internet, take the following steps:

(1) Go to the Docket Management

System (DMS) Web page of the

Department of Transportation (http://

dms.dot.gov/).

(2) On that page, click on ‘‘search.’’

(3) On the next page (http://

dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the fourdigit docket number shown at the

beginning of this document. Example: If

the docket number were ‘‘NHTSA–

2000–1234,’’ you would type ‘‘1234.’’

After typing the docket number, click on

‘‘search.’’

(4) On the next page, which contains

docket summary information for the

materials in the docket you selected,

click on the desired comments. You

may download the comments.

Please note that even after the

comment closing date, we will continue

to file relevant information in the

Docket as it becomes available. Further,

some people may submit late comments.

Accordingly, we recommend that you

periodically check the Docket for new

material.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 573:

Defects, Motor vehicle safety,

Noncompliance, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

In consideration of the foregoing,

NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part

573 as set forth below.

1. The authority citation for part 573

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102–103, 30112,

30117–121, 30166–167; delegation of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

2. In § 573.5, redesignate paragraphs

(c)(9) through (c)(11) as paragraphs

(c)(10) through (c)(12) and by add a new

paragraph (c)(9) to read as follows:

§ 573.5 Defect and noncompliance

information report.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(9) In the case of a remedy program

involving the replacement of tires, the

manufacturer’s program for remedying

the defect or noncompliance shall:

(i) Include a plan for assuring that the

entities replacing the tires are aware of

the legal requirements related to recalls

of tires established by 49 U.S.C. Chapter

301, including regulations thereunder;

(ii) Address how the manufacturer

will prevent, to the extent reasonably

within its control, the recalled tires from

being resold for installation on a motor

vehicle; and

(iii) Address how the manufacturer

will limit, to the extent reasonably

within its control, the disposal of the

recalled tires in landfills and, instead,

channel them into a category of positive

reuse (shredding, crumbling, recycling,

and recovery) or another alternative

beneficial non-vehicular use.

(A) With respect to the requirement in

paragraph (c)(9)(i) of this section, at a

minimum, the manufacturer shall notify

its owned stores, franchised dealers,

and/or distributors, as well as all

independent outlets that are authorized

to replace the tires that are the subject

of the recall, about the prohibitions and

notification requirements in Chapter

301. This includes notification of the

ban on the sale of new defective or

noncompliant tires (49 U.S.C. 30120(i));

the prohibition on the sale of new and

used defective and noncompliant tires

(49 U.S.C. 30120(j)); and the duty to

notify NHTSA of any sale of a new or

used recalled tire for use on a motor

vehicle (49 U.S.C. 30166(n)). For tire

outlets that are manufacturer-owned or

otherwise subject to the control of the

manufacturer, the manufacturer shall

also provide directions to comply with

these statutory provisions and the

regulations thereunder.

(B) With respect to the requirement in

paragraph (c)(9)(ii) of this section, the

manufacturer’s program must, at a

minimum, include the following:

(1) Written directions to

manufacturer-owned and other

manufacturer-controlled outlets to alter

the recalled tires permanently so that

they cannot be used on vehicles, and

instructions on how and when to

perform such alterations. These shall

include instructions on the means to

render recalled tires unsuitable for

resale for installation on motor vehicles

and instructions to perform the

incapacitation of each recalled tire by

the close of business on the day on

which recalled tire has been removed

from the vehicle;

(2) Written guidance to all other

outlets that are authorized to replace the

recalled tires on how to alter the

recalled tires promptly and permanently

so that they cannot be used on vehicles;

and

(3) A requirement that manufacturerowned and other manufacturercontrolled outlets report to the

manufacturer on a monthly basis the

number of recalled tires removed from

vehicles by the outlet that have not been

rendered unsuitable for resale for

installation on a motor vehicle within

the specified time frame and describe

any such failure to comply with the

manufacturer=s plan;

(C) With respect to the requirement in

paragraph (c)(9)(iii) of this section, the

manufacturer’s program must, at a

minimum, include the following:

(1) Written directions that require

manufacturer-owned and other

manufacturer-controlled outlets to

comply with applicable state and local

laws and regulations regarding disposal

of tires, and that provide further

direction and guidance to manufacturerowned and other manufacturercontrolled outlets on how to limit the

disposal of recalled tires in landfills

and, instead, channel them into a

category of positive reuse (shredding,

crumbling, recycling, and recovery) or

another alternative beneficial nonvehicular use;

(2) Written guidance to all other

outlets that are authorized to replace the

recalled tires regarding the duty to

comply with applicable state and local

laws and regulations regarding disposal

of tires; and

(3) A requirement that manufacturerowned and other manufacturercontrolled outlets report to the

manufacturer on a monthly basis the

number of recalled tires disposed of in

violation of applicable laws and

regulations. Each such report shall

include a description of any such failure

of the tire outlet to act in accordance

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules 65173

with the directions in the

manufacturer’s plan.

(D) As used in this paragraph, written

directions to a manufacturer-owned or

controlled outlet shall be sent to the

person in charge of each outlet with

further instructions to notify all

employees of the outlet who are

involved with removal, rendering

unsuitable for use, or disposition of

recalled tires of the above requirements.

(E) Manufacturers must implement

the plans for disposition of recalled tires

that they file with NHTSA pursuant to

this paragraph. The failure of a

manufacturer to implement its plan in

accordance with its terms constitutes a

violation of the Safety Act.

* * * * *

3. In § 573.6, add paragraph (b)(7) to

read as follows:

§ 573.6 Quarterly reports.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(7) For all recalls that involve the

replacement of tires, the manufacturer

shall provide

(i) The aggregate number of recalled

tires which the manufacturer becomes

aware have not been rendered

unsuitable for resale for installation on

a motor vehicle in accordance with the

manufacturer’s plan provided to

NHTSA pursuant to § 573.5(c)(9) of this

part;

(ii) The aggregate number of recalled

tires which the manufacturer becomes

aware have been disposed of in

violation of applicable state and local

laws and regulations; and

(iii) A description of any failure of a

tire outlet to act in accordance with the

directions in the manufacturer’s plan,

including an identification of the outlets

in question.

Issued on: December 11, 2001.

Kenneth N. Weinstein,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Assurance.

[FR Doc. 01–30998 Filed 12–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P