[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 105 (Thursday, June 1, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28561-28564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13314]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 95-43, Notice 01]
RIN No. 2127-AF05
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Tire Selection and Rims
for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice solicits comments to assist NHTSA in determining
whether to propose certain amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (Standard) No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles
other than passenger cars.
This rulemaking action implements NHTSA's granting of a petition
for rulemaking submitted by the Tire Retreading Institute (TRI). The
petition suggested that paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 120 be amended
to permit the installation of manufacturer-supplied retreaded tires on
new trailers. As currently provided, used or retreaded tires may be
installed on new trucks, buses, and trailers only if owned and provided
by the vehicle purchaser. This notice solicits comments on that
suggestion and, in addition, solicits comments on whether the standard
should be further amended to permit manufacturers and/or distributors
and dealers, in addition to the vehicle purchasers, to install used as
well as retreaded tires on new trucks and buses as well as trailers.
DATES: Comment closing date: Comments on this notice must be received
on or before September 29, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted to: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5109, Washington, DC
20590. Docket Room hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Terri Droneburg, Office of Vehicle
Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street SW., Room 5307, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone (202)
366-6617.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Standard No. 120 requires that vehicles equipped with pneumatic
tires for highway service be equipped with new tires that meet the
requirements of either Standard No. 109, New pneumatic tires (49 CFR
571.109) or Standard 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than
passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119).\1\ Paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No.
120, however, provides that in place of tires that meet Standard No.
119, a truck, bus, or trailer may, at the request of the vehicle
purchaser, be equipped at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with
used or retreaded tires owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser. The
sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires must meet the requirements
of paragraph S5.1.2 of the standard, which requires that the sum of the
maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle be not less than
the gross axle weight rating of the axle system. Also, only used tires
originally [[Page 28562]] manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119,
as evidenced by a DOT symbol marked on the sidewall of the tire, can
qualify for the S5.1.3 exception.
\1\ Standard No. 120 also requires vehicles to be equipped with
rims that are listed by tire manufacturers as suitable for use with
their tires in accordance with Standard Nos. 109 and 119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard No. 120 was promulgated by Federal Register notice dated
January 23, 1976 (41 FR 3467), and became effective in phases between
September 1, 1976 and September 1, 1979. Initially, the S5.1.3
exception applied only to used tires owned or leased by the vehicle
purchaser, if the maximum load ratings were sufficient to carry the
loads of the axles on which they were installed. This was intended to
accommodate ``mileage contract'' purchasers, a common practice in the
commercial truck, bus and trailer industry in which the purchaser's
vehicles are equipped with tires purchased or leased from a supplier on
a cost-per-mile basis.
In reviewing the standard after its issuance, NHTSA noted some
minor errors and some portions of the standard that required
clarification. The agency published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) on October 30, 1980 (45 FR 71834) proposing to amend S5.1.3 to
permit the installation of retreaded as well as used tires, but
limiting that exception to mileage contract purchasers only. The agency
reasoned that suppliers that provided tires on a mileage contract basis
had a contractual obligation to ensure that the tires were serviceable
and safe for use on the vehicles for which they were intended. The
agency further believed that this safeguard would not exist in the case
of any other purchaser who was merely trying to save the cost of
purchasing new tires, since a purchaser could send the vehicle
manufacturer palpably unsafe tires for mounting on a new vehicle.
Thirteen comments to the NPRM were received, 12 of which opposed
the provision limiting the exception to mileage contract purchasers.
The commenters stated that it is common practice for all vehicle
fleets, not just mileage contract purchasers, to send tires from their
tire banks to vehicle manufacturers for mounting on the new vehicles
they order. Tire banks are composed of serviceable tires that have been
removed from vehicles that are no longer in service. The commenters
argued that the proposal in the NPRM to limit the used/retreaded tire
exception to mileage contract purchasers would effectively eliminate
the practice of maintaining tire banks, thereby increasing costs for
the vehicle fleets affected with no safety justification for doing so.
Some commenters also argued that it made no sense for a purchaser to
spend $65,000 to $75,000 for a new vehicle, then install unsafe tires
on it. Finally, one commenter correctly pointed out that Standard No.
120 did not require that new vehicles be equipped with tires.
Therefore, a purchaser could, if it chose to do so, order a new vehicle
for delivery without tires, then install unsafe tires on it after
delivery.
NHTSA was persuaded by those comments and decided not to limit the
use of used and retreaded tires only to mileage contract purchasers,
but to widen the exception to permit all purchasers to provide their
own tires. In addition, since all commenters who addressed the retread
tire proposal supported it, NHTSA adopted that provision for inclusion
in S5.1.3. NHTSA then published the final rule promulgating the current
provisions of Standard No. 120 on May 17, 1984 (49 FR 20822).
II. Petition for Rulemaking
The Tire Retreading Institute (TRI), a division of the National
Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association, suggested in a petition for
rulemaking that the used/retreaded tire exception of S5.1.3 be amended
to permit the installation of manufacturer-supplied retreaded tires on
new trailers. TRI argued that retreaded tires from any source should be
permitted as long as they meet appropriate quality standards and as
long as the vehicle purchaser is informed that the vehicle has
retreaded tires. TRI believed that permitting the installation of
manufacturer-supplied retreaded tires would give the purchaser greater
flexibility in the choice of tires for the new vehicle.
TRI asserted that the current restriction on the source of
retreaded tires is not supported by safety considerations. TRI
suggested that by permitting the use of purchaser-supplied retreaded
tires on new trailers, NHTSA acknowledged that retreaded tires can
safely be used on those vehicles. TRI believed that NHTSA decided to
permit installation of only purchaser-supplied used or retreaded tires
and not manufacturer-supplied used or retreaded tires because the
agency believed purchasers have an interest, perhaps not shared by
manufacturers, in ensuring that higher quality tires are placed on
their own vehicles. TRI argued that, to the contrary, the vehicle
manufacturer would be more knowledgeable than the purchaser of the
safety characteristics of the vehicle and its tires and, because of
vehicle warranty and liability considerations, would select retreaded
tires with the same quality considerations as in selecting such vehicle
components as axles, bearings, or new tires. Since the retreaded tires
would be installed at the manufacturer's initiative, TRI considered it
essential that the purchaser be advised in writing that the new vehicle
was equipped with retreaded tires, giving the purchaser the opportunity
to make further inquiries or impose additional requirements, while
still enjoying the cost advantage of retreaded tires.
TRI also argued that the current exclusion of manufacturer-supplied
retreaded tires is unfair to small purchasers of trailers. TRI said
that currently, only large fleet owners with tire banks can take
advantage of the cost savings of retreaded tires, while small
businesses with only a few vehicles and no available supply of tire
casings cannot. TRI argued that the current regulation discriminates
against small purchasers because these businesses must acquire
retreaded tires from another source and ship them to the manufacturer
for installation. TRI considered this an unnecessary, burdensome
practice.
TRI also asserted that in the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., Congress mandated the use of
recycled products to the maximum extent practicable, including the use
of retreaded tires. TRI further referred to an Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) regulation that, in implementing the RCRA, requires
federal agencies to procure retreaded tires ``to the maximum extent
possible'' (40 CFR 253.10). Accordingly, the petitioner believed that
the current restriction on manufacturer-supplied retreaded tires
contravenes these governmental policies of promoting the maximum use of
retreaded tires.
III. Agency Analysis of Petition
As discussed above, paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 120 permits
manufacturers of new trucks, buses, and trailers to install used or
retreaded tires on those new vehicles only if such tires are supplied
by the vehicle purchaser. Apart from that narrow exception, paragraph
S5.1.1 of the standard requires the installation of new tires that meet
the requirements of Standard Nos. 109 or 119.
While there is a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, Standard
No. 117, Retreaded pneumatic tires, for retreaded tires on passenger
cars, there is no similar standard for retreaded tires for vehicles
other than passenger cars. Further, there are no performance standards
applicable to used tires since this agency does not have authority to
regulate used vehicles or equipment. As noted above, in issuing the
S5.1.3 [[Page 28563]] exception NHTSA reasoned that motor vehicle
purchasers would be likely to provide safe, serviceable tires for
installation on their new vehicles. NHTSA believes that reasoning has
been vindicated in that the agency has received no reports of any
safety problems associated with the use of purchaser-provided used or
retreaded tires. The agency still believes, however, that such
reasoning would not extend to manufacturer-supplied used or retreaded
tires and that, warranty and liability considerations notwithstanding,
manufacturers, distributors and dealers would not have as great an
interest as vehicle purchasers in providing safe, serviceable used or
retreaded tires on their new vehicles. Further, manufacturers would not
know the history of the used or retreaded tire casings as well as the
vehicle purchaser would be expected to know.
Nevertheless, although NHTSA disagrees with some of the
petitioner's arguments, the agency granted TRI's petition on August 12,
1993, in the belief that the petitioner raised some issues that merit
further consideration. For example, the petitioner argues that
installation of retreaded tires should be permitted, regardless of
their source. Although this agency has received mixed reviews regarding
the performance of retreaded tires, the petitioner correctly pointed
out the policy of the Federal government in utilizing recycled
products, including retreaded tires, to the extent practicable (see the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901, et seq., and
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 253). The petitioner also
correctly asserted that manufacturer-installed retreaded tires would
provide purchasers greater flexibility in the choice of tires for their
vehicles, as long as the purchaser was notified in writing that the
vehicle was equipped with retreaded tires.
On the other hand, the agency does not agree with the petitioner's
assertion that the current limited exception in S5.1.3 is not supported
by safety considerations. The agency believes that permitting vehicle
purchasers to supply their own tires for their new vehicles is
consistent with motor vehicle safety. Given the interest of vehicle
purchasers in their personal safety and their economic interest in
protecting their investment in their vehicles, vehicle purchasers have
a strong motivation to install safe tires on their new vehicles.
Further, although the agency is confident that most vehicle
manufacturers are reliable and reputable and would select safe and
serviceable tires for the vehicles they produce, it cannot be assumed
that all manufacturers would be consistently reliable or conscientious
in their selection of used and/or retreaded tires.
Finally, NHTSA does not agree with the petitioner that the current
exclusion of manufacturer-supplied used or retreaded tires
discriminates against small businesses. Large businesses generally are
in a better position than small businesses to take advantage of cost
savings by large quantity transactions in return for discount prices.
In this case, the standard gives both large and small businesses the
advantage of utilizing tires already on hand on their new vehicles,
thus saving the unnecessary costs of purchasing unneeded new tires.
Although the petition suggested relaxing the limitation on the
current S5.1.3 exception only to the extent of allowing installation of
manufacturer-supplied retreaded tires on new trailers, NHTSA believes
that it is appropriate to consider permitting the installation of
manufacturer, distributor, and dealer-supplied used tires as well as
retreaded tires on trucks and buses as well as trailers. This agency is
committed to the use of recycled products to the extent practicable
within the constraints of motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, if the use
of used and retreaded tires, whether supplied by the purchaser,
manufacturer, or distributor/dealer, is not inimical to motor vehicle
safety, then NHTSA is receptive to considering further relaxation of
the exception.
IV. Issues for NHTSA Consideration
As pointed out above, NHTSA has no data on any correlation between
motor vehicle safety and the use of used and retreaded tires on new
trucks, buses, and trailers. The agency is hopeful, therefore, that
this notice will elicit meaningful comments and suggestions on which to
base a decision on whether or not to amend the exception in Standard
No. 120 and, if so, to what extent. Accordingly, NHTSA requests
comments on the following specific issues:
1. How many or what percentage of new trucks, buses, and trailers
are sold per year with purchaser-supplied used or retreaded tires
installed?
2. Who are the heaviest users of the S5.1.3 exception, mileage
contract/tire bank purchasers or private citizens?
3. Should any amendment to Standard No. 120 be limited to
permitting the installation of only manufacturer-supplied retreaded
tires only on new trailers? Should distributor/dealer-supplied
retreaded tires also be permitted to be installed on new trailers?
4. Should Standard No. 120 be amended to permit the installation of
manufacturer-supplied retreaded tires on new trucks and buses as well
as trailers? Should installation of distributor/dealer-supplied
retreaded tires be permitted on new trucks and buses as well as
trailers?
5. Should Standard No. 120 be amended to permit the installation of
manufacturer-supplied used tires on new trailers only? Should
distributor/dealer-supplied used tires also be permitted on new
trailers?
6. Should Standard No. 120 be amended to permit the installation of
manufacturer-supplied used tires on new trucks and buses as well as new
trailers? Should distributor/dealer-supplied used tires also be
permitted on new trucks and buses?
7. Should used and/or retreaded tires be permitted on new school
buses? On steering and/or drive axles of other new vehicles?
Note: 49 CFR 393.75(d) prohibits the use of retreaded tires on
the steering axles of buses operated in interstate commerce.
8. Should NHTSA propose a Federal motor vehicle safety standard
applicable to retreaded tires for motor vehicles other than passenger
cars? If so, should it parallel Standard No. 117? Standard No. 119?
9. What requirements or criteria should be established for the
installation of manufacturer or distributor/dealer-supplied used and/or
retreaded tires on new motor vehicles other than passenger cars?
10. Should new vehicle purchasers, if not supplying or requesting
the tires, be notified of the installation of used or retreaded tires?
In writing? Orally?
11. What would be the economic impact of permitting the
installation of manufacturer or distributor/dealer-supplied retreaded
tires on new trailers? On new trucks and buses as well as trailers?
12. What would be the economic impact of permitting the
installation of manufacturer or distributor/dealer-supplied used tires
on new trailers? On new trucks and buses as well as trailers?
13. What would be the environmental impact of permitting the
installation of manufacturer or distributor/dealer-supplied retreaded
tires on new trailers? On new trucks and buses as well as trailers?
14. What would be the environmental impact of permitting the
installation of manufacturer or distributor/dealer-supplied used as
well as retreaded tires on new trailers? On new trucks and buses as
well as trailers? [[Page 28564]]
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This notice was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866. NHTSA has
considered the impacts associated with this request for comments and
has concluded that it is not significant under DOT's Regulatory
Policies and Procedures. As explained above, this document requests
comments to aid the agency in determining whether to propose amending
Standard No. 120 and if so, the extent of such amendment.
B. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that
this proposal does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
VI. Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposal.
It is requested but not required that any comments be submitted in 10
copies each.
Comments must not exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21). This
limitation is intended to encourage commenters to detail their primary
arguments in concise fashion. Necessary attachments may be appended to
these submissions without regard to the 15-page limit.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, 3 copies of the complete submission, including the
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address shown above, and 7
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in 49 CFR part 512, the agency's confidential
business information regulation.
All comments received on or before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above for the proposal will be
considered, and will be available to the public for examination in the
docket at the above address both before and after the closing date. To
the extent possible, comments received after the closing date will be
considered. Comments received too late for consideration in regard to
the final rule will be considered as suggestions for further rulemaking
action. Comments on the proposal will be available for public
inspection in the docket. NHTSA will continue to file relevant
information in the docket after the closing date, and it is recommended
that interested persons continue to monitor the docket for new
material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on May 23, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-13314 Filed 5-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P