The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 41475-41476 [05-14108]

Download as PDF 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