The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 41475-41476 [05-14108]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 19, 2005 / Notices
plus physical reasoning, perhaps
supplemented by models and
simulation, will be used to select
appropriate values. (2) Determine
appropriate metrics and use them to
measure system performance.
These metrics must have a
quantifiable relationship to either the
level of exposure to risky situations or
the level of crash prevention, severity
reduction, and occupant protection
potential of various advanced vehicle
technologies.
Task 4—Performance Testing: In this
task specific candidate technologies and
systems will be identified to assess their
performance. Systems that have the
potential of degrading safety
performance will be included for
evaluation. Systems will be selected
based on their potential safety impact
(positive or negative) and level of
market readiness. Specific full system
test/tests will be developed for the
selected systems. The tests performed
under this task may be test-track,
driving simulator, and/or reduced scale
laboratory tests.
Task 5—Analysis and Reporting: The
results will be analyzed in accordance
with the methodology previously
defined and the estimates of safety
benefits will be computed. After agency
review, this information will be shared
with industry and the public via
NHTSA’s existing communication
mechanisms.
Information Requested: The purpose
of this document is to collect
information about advanced
technologies and their impact on
automotive safety, and expressions of
interest in participating in cooperative
activities in order to assist NHTSA in
developing and implementing the
ACAT Program. Researchers and
technical experts from automotive
original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs), their suppliers, and other
interested parties that are able to
collaborate with OEMs and Tier 1
suppliers are invited to submit technical
information that responds to the
following questions:
1. What are the qualifications of the
responder?
2. Please describe the advanced crash
avoidance and other safety technologies
that your organization is developing?
3. What safety problem (i.e., crash
type, causal factors, and critical events)
do these systems address?
4. Do methodologies or procedures
and data exist to objectively test the
ability of these systems to address
specific crash problems?
5. Do you have suggestions on how to
identify unintended consequences, such
as driver adaptation, and their impact
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:15 Jul 18, 2005
Jkt 205001
prior to the widespread deployment of
these systems?
6. Do you have any suggestions on
how to improve the program?
NHTSA believes that partnerships
with the motor vehicle industry are an
important element of this program. As
part of this request for information, we
are seeking expressions of interest in
participating in any of the following:
a. Participating in a cooperative
agreement to develop objective test
procedures,
b. Providing systems to support the
development of objective test
procedures,
c. Providing existing test procedures
or data.
Written Statements, Presentations,
and 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.
For written materials, two copies
should be submitted to Docket
Management at the address given at the
beginning of this document. The
materials must not exceed 15 pages in
length (49 CFR 553.21). Necessary
attachments may be appended to the
submissions without regard to the 15page limit. This limitation is intended to
encourage commenters to detail their
information in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit
certain information under a claim of
confidentiality, three copies of the
complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business
information, should be submitted to the
Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Additionally, two copies of the above
document from which the purportedly
confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to Docket
Management. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied
by a cover letter setting forth the
information specified in the agency’s
confidential business information
regulation, 49 CFR part 512.
Issued on: July 13, 2005.
Joseph N. Kanianthra,
Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety
Research.
[FR Doc. 05–14107 Filed 7–18–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
41475
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA 2005–21267; Notice 2]
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company (Goodyear) has determined
that certain tires it manufactured in
2002–2004 do not comply with S4.3(d)
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 109, ‘‘New
pneumatic tires.’’ Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118(d) and 30120(h), Goodyear has
petitioned for a determination that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety and has filed an
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance
Reports.’’ Notice of receipt of a petition
was published, with a 30-day comment
period, on May 31, 2005, in the Federal
Register (70 FR 31006). NHTSA
received one comment.
Affected are a total of approximately
6117 Eagle F1 Supercar tires in four
different sizes, manufactured from
January 2002 to December 2004. S4.3(d)
of FMVSS No. 109 requires that ‘‘each
tire shall have permanently molded into
or onto both sidewalls * * * (d) The
generic name of each cord material used
in the plies (both sidewall and tread
area) of the tire.’’ The labeling
information on the noncompliant tires
incorrectly states that one of the tire
reinforcement materials is NYLON
when the actual material in these tires
is ARAMID.
Goodyear believes that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety and that no
corrective action is warranted. Goodyear
states that the mislabeling creates no
unsafe condition. Goodyear further
states that all of the markings related to
tire service including load capacity and
corresponding inflation pressure are
correct, and that the tires meet or exceed
all applicable FMVSS performance
requirements.
The Transportation Recall,
Enhancement, Accountability, and
Documentation (TREAD) Act (Public
Law 106–414) required, among other
things, that the agency initiate
rulemaking to improve tire label
information. In response, the agency
published an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the
Federal Register on December 1, 2000
(65 FR 75222).
The agency received more than 20
comments on the tire labeling
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
41476
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 19, 2005 / Notices
information required by 49 CFR sections
571.109 and 119, part 567, part 574, and
part 575. In addition, the agency
conducted a series of focus groups, as
required by the TREAD Act, to examine
consumer perceptions and
understanding of tire labeling. Few of
the focus group participants had
knowledge of tire labeling beyond the
tire brand name, tire size, and tire
pressure.
Based on the information obtained
from comments to the ANPRM and the
consumer focus groups, we have
concluded that it is likely that few
consumers have been influenced by the
tire construction information (number of
plies and cord material in the sidewall
and tread plies) provided on the tire
label when deciding to buy a motor
vehicle or tire.
Therefore, the agency agrees with
Goodyear’s statement that the incorrect
markings in this case do not present a
serious safety concern. (This decision is
limited to its specific facts. As some
commenters on the ANPRM noted, the
existence of steel in a tire’s sidewall can
be relevant to the manner in which it
should be repaired or retreaded.) There
is no effect of the noncompliance on the
operational safety of vehicles on which
these tires are mounted. In the agency’s
judgment, the incorrect labeling of the
tire construction information will have
an inconsequential effect on motor
vehicle safety because most consumers
do not base tire purchases or vehicle
operation parameters on the tire labeling
information found on the side of the
tire. In addition, the tires are certified to
meet all the performance requirements
of FMVSS No. 109 and all other
informational markings as required by
FMVSS No. 109 are present. Goodyear
has corrected the problem.
One comment favoring denial was
received from a private individual. The
issue to be considered in determining
whether to grant this petition is the
effect of the noncompliance on motor
vehicle safety. The comment does not
address this issue, and therefore has no
bearing on NHTSA’s determination.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA has decided that the petitioner
has met its burden of persuasion that
the noncompliance described is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Goodyear’s petition is
granted and the petitioner is exempted
from the obligation of providing
notification of, and a remedy for, the
noncompliance.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120;
delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and
501.8)
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:15 Jul 18, 2005
Jkt 205001
Issued on: July 13, 2005.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle
Safety.
[FR Doc. 05–14108 Filed 7–18–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–21859; Notice 1]
Toyota Motor North America, Inc.,
Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
Toyota Motor North America (Toyota)
has determined that certain model year
2003 through 2005 vehicles that it
produced do not comply with S5(c)(2)
of 49 CFR 571.225, Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
225, ‘‘Child restraint anchorage
systems.’’ Toyota has filed an
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance
Reports.’’
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h), Toyota has petitioned for an
exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
This notice of receipt of Toyota’s
petition is published under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120 and does not represent
any agency decision or other exercise of
judgment concerning the merits of the
petition.
Affected are a total of approximately
156,555 model year 2003 to 2005 Toyota
Tundra access cab vehicles produced
between September 1, 2002 and April
22, 2005. S5(c)(2) of FMVSS No. 225
requires each vehicle that
(i) Has a rear designated seating position
and meets the conditions in S4.5.4.1(b) of
Standard No. 208 * * * and, (ii) Has an air
bag on-off switch meeting the requirements
of S4.5.4 of Standard 208 * * * shall have
a child restraint anchorage system for a
designated passenger seating position in the
front seat, instead of a child restraint
anchorage system that is required for the rear
seat. * * *
The subject vehicles do not have a
child restraint lower anchorage in the
front seat as required by S5(c)(2).
Toyota believes that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety and that no
corrective action is warranted. Toyota
states that it considered whether rearfacing child restraints could be used in
the noncompliant vehicles, and ‘‘is
unaware of any rear-facing child
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
restraints that require lower anchorages
in the vehicle.’’ Toyota further states,
Most, if not all rear facing child restraints
(even those with lower anchorage systems),
have belt paths which allow the child
restraint to be secured properly in the front
passenger seat of the subject vehicles
utilizing the front passenger seatbelt. We also
note that child restraint manufacturers
provide instructions with their child seats
(even lower anchorage equipped child seats)
on how to install their restraint with the
seatbelt. In addition, all Toyota Tundra
vehicles provide instructions on how to
install child restraints with the seatbelt.
Toyota points out that model year
2000 to 2002 Tundra access cab vehicles
have a front passenger airbag on-off
switch as standard equipment but not
lower anchorage system because they
were produced prior to the FMVSS No.
225 lower anchorage requirement with
which the subject vehicles noncomply.
Toyota asserts that,
considering child restraint installation in
the front passenger seat, the 2003–2005 MY
vehicles (subject vehicles) are no different
than the 2000–02 MY vehicles and further, it
follows that the subject vehicles are no less
safe than the 2000–02 MY vehicles.
Toyota further states that it
considered
whether a lower anchorage child restraint
can be mistakenly installed in the front
passenger seat attempting to utilize the lower
anchorage. Upon investigating the seat bight
of the subject vehicles, we believe a current
vehicle owner or subsequent owner could
easily observe that no lower anchorage bars
exist. We would also note that there are no
portions of the seat frame within the seat
bight of the front passenger seat that may be
mistaken for lower anchorage bars.
Toyota notes that it has not received
customer complaints regarding the
absence of a front passenger seat child
restraint lower anchorage system, not
has it received any reports of a crash,
injury or fatality due to this
noncompliance.
Interested persons are invited to
submit written data, views, and
arguments on the petition described
above. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited at the
beginning of this notice and be
submitted by any of the following
methods. Mail: Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Nassif Building, Room
PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, 20590–0001. Hand
Delivery: Room PL–401 on the plaza
level of the Nassif Building, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. It
is requested, but not required, that two
copies of the comments be provided.
The Docket Section is open on
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41475-41476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-14108]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA 2005-21267; Notice 2]
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear) has determined that
certain tires it manufactured in 2002-2004 do not comply with S4.3(d)
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109, ``New
pneumatic tires.'' Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h),
Goodyear has petitioned for a determination that this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and has filed an appropriate
report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance
Reports.'' Notice of receipt of a petition was published, with a 30-day
comment period, on May 31, 2005, in the Federal Register (70 FR 31006).
NHTSA received one comment.
Affected are a total of approximately 6117 Eagle F1 Supercar tires
in four different sizes, manufactured from January 2002 to December
2004. S4.3(d) of FMVSS No. 109 requires that ``each tire shall have
permanently molded into or onto both sidewalls * * * (d) The generic
name of each cord material used in the plies (both sidewall and tread
area) of the tire.'' The labeling information on the noncompliant tires
incorrectly states that one of the tire reinforcement materials is
NYLON when the actual material in these tires is ARAMID.
Goodyear believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted.
Goodyear states that the mislabeling creates no unsafe condition.
Goodyear further states that all of the markings related to tire
service including load capacity and corresponding inflation pressure
are correct, and that the tires meet or exceed all applicable FMVSS
performance requirements.
The Transportation Recall, Enhancement, Accountability, and
Documentation (TREAD) Act (Public Law 106-414) required, among other
things, that the agency initiate rulemaking to improve tire label
information. In response, the agency published an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register on December 1, 2000
(65 FR 75222).
The agency received more than 20 comments on the tire labeling
[[Page 41476]]
information required by 49 CFR sections 571.109 and 119, part 567, part
574, and part 575. In addition, the agency conducted a series of focus
groups, as required by the TREAD Act, to examine consumer perceptions
and understanding of tire labeling. Few of the focus group participants
had knowledge of tire labeling beyond the tire brand name, tire size,
and tire pressure.
Based on the information obtained from comments to the ANPRM and
the consumer focus groups, we have concluded that it is likely that few
consumers have been influenced by the tire construction information
(number of plies and cord material in the sidewall and tread plies)
provided on the tire label when deciding to buy a motor vehicle or
tire.
Therefore, the agency agrees with Goodyear's statement that the
incorrect markings in this case do not present a serious safety
concern. (This decision is limited to its specific facts. As some
commenters on the ANPRM noted, the existence of steel in a tire's
sidewall can be relevant to the manner in which it should be repaired
or retreaded.) There is no effect of the noncompliance on the
operational safety of vehicles on which these tires are mounted. In the
agency's judgment, the incorrect labeling of the tire construction
information will have an inconsequential effect on motor vehicle safety
because most consumers do not base tire purchases or vehicle operation
parameters on the tire labeling information found on the side of the
tire. In addition, the tires are certified to meet all the performance
requirements of FMVSS No. 109 and all other informational markings as
required by FMVSS No. 109 are present. Goodyear has corrected the
problem.
One comment favoring denial was received from a private individual.
The issue to be considered in determining whether to grant this
petition is the effect of the noncompliance on motor vehicle safety.
The comment does not address this issue, and therefore has no bearing
on NHTSA's determination.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the
petitioner has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance
described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
Goodyear's petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted from the
obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, the
noncompliance.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8)
Issued on: July 13, 2005.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 05-14108 Filed 7-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
