Pacific Coast Retreaders, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 3152-3153 [E6-522]

Download as PDF 3152 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2006 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2006–23554; Notice 1] sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. (Kawasaki) has determined that the tires on certain motorcycles that it imported do not comply with S6.5(d) of 49 CFR 571.119, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, ‘‘New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.’’ Kawasaki 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), Kawasaki 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 Kawasaki’s petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise judgment concerning the merits of the petition. Affected are the tires on a total of approximately 2,655 motorcycles which were manufactured between June 14, 2003 and October 27, 2005. S6.5(d) of FMVSS No. 119 requires that the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure of the tires be marked on the tire in both English and metric units. The noncompliant tires do not have the metric markings. Kawasaki believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Kawasaki states that there is little or no reason to expect an owner of these vehicles to have difficulty inflating the tires properly or understanding the loading information ‘‘since the motorcycle owner is provided with the appropriate information in English units, which are far more prevalent in use in the United States.’’ Further, Kawasaki states that the motorcycles are small and most often used for short distance commuting, and therefore ‘‘not likely to be ridden outside of the United States to jurisdictions where tire inflation equipment would be less likely to be calibrated in English units.’’ Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:38 Jan 18, 2006 Jkt 208001 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 Federal Holidays. Comments may be submitted electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System Web site at https://dms.dot.gov. Click on ‘‘Help’’ to obtain instructions for filing the document electronically. Comments may be faxed to 1–202–493–2251, or may be submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below. Comment closing date: February 21, 2006. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: January 12, 2006. Daniel C. Smith, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. 06–463 Filed 1–18–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2006–23553; Notice 1] Pacific Coast Retreaders, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Pacific Coast Retreaders, Inc. (Pacific Coast) has determined that certain tires that it imported do not comply with S6.5(b) of 49 CFR 571.119, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, ‘‘New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.’’ Pacific Coast has filed an appropriate PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance Reports.’’ Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Pacific Coast 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 Pacific Coast’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 780 tires produced in March 2005 by Linglong Rubber Company in China and imported by Pacific Coast in April 2005. One requirement of S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119, tire markings, is that the tire identification shall comply with 49 CFR Part 574, ‘‘Tire Identification and Recordkeeping,’’ which includes the marking requirements of 574.5(b) DOT size code. The subject tires are missing the required tire size code. Pacific Coast believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Pacific Coast explains that, as a result of mold cleaning and repair, some of the tire size code symbols were not restamped after repair, and worn symbols were not retraced. Pacific Coast states that ‘‘the tire size is embossed in very larger (sic) raised characters on both sidewalls and [is] easily identifiable from a great distance.’’ The petitioner states that as a result, there is no confusion as to the tire size. Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. 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 Federal Holidays. Comments may be submitted electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System Web site at https://dms.dot.gov. Click on ‘‘Help’’ to obtain instructions for filing the document electronically. Comments may be faxed to 1–202–493–2251, or may be submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to https:// E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2006 / Notices www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below. Comment closing date: February 21, 2006. removable only by use of a screwdriver or other tool. (b) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified therein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from ‘‘park’’ after the removal of the key. The device shall either be operable: (1) By the key, as defined in S3; or (2) By another means, provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed from the ignition, and provided that the means for activating the device is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device. The covering surface shall be removable only by use of a screwdriver or other tool. (Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8.) Issued on: January 12, 2006. Daniel C. Smith, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. E6–522 Filed 1–18–06; 8:45 am] The subject vehicles are equipped with an override device but the steering wheel may not lock under some circumstances when the key is removed. Nissan believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Nissan states that the vehicles are equipped with an engine control module immobilizer system which prevents forward movement of the vehicle if the key is not present. Nissan points out that NHTSA recently granted inconsequential noncompliance petitions for similar noncompliances by Bentley, Volkswagen, and Porsche. Nissan also points out that NHTSA recently published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (70 FR 48362, 8/17/05), and that under this proposal, the system in the subject Maximas would be allowed. Nissan further states, BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA 2005–22969; Notice 2] Nissan North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) has determined that certain vehicles that it produced in 2005 do not comply with S4.2.2 of 49 CFR 571.114, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 114, ‘‘Theft protection.’’ Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Nissan 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 November 18, 2005, in the Federal Register (70 FR 70026). NHTSA received no comments. Affected are a total of approximately 3400 Nissan Maximas produced between March 29, 2005 and May 26, 2005. S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 114 requires that, (a) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, provided that steering is prevented upon the key’s removal, each vehicle specified therein may permit key removal when electrical failure of this system (including battery discharge) occurs or may have a device which, when activated, permits key removal. The means for activating any such device shall be covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device. The covering surface shall be VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:38 Jan 18, 2006 Jkt 208001 The requirement that the steering be locked when the ignition key is removed through use of an ‘‘override device’’ was added to S4.2.2 ‘‘to ensure that Standard No. 114’s theft protection aspects are not jeopardized.’’ See 57 FR 2039, 2040 (January 17, 1992). In the Maxima vehicles at issue here, when the key is removed through use of the ‘‘override device,’’ which will occur rarely if at all, the immobilizer will prevent the vehicle from being jump-started without the electronically coded ignition key, because the key-code is recorded in the engine control module and cannot be electrically bypassed. NHTSA agrees with Nissan that the noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. The agency issued an interpretation letter to an unnamed person on September 24, 2004, which stated in pertinent part as follows: The engine control module immobilizer described in your letter satisfies the requirements of S4.2(b) because it locks out the engine control module if an attempt is made to start the vehicle without the correct key or to bypass the electronic ignition system. When the engine control module is locked, the vehicle is not capable of forward self-mobility because it is incapable of moving forward under its own power. PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 3153 Theft protection of vehicles is addressed under S4.2 of the standard. Section 4.2(b) can be met by preventing ‘‘either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both.’’ Therefore, an equivalent level of theft protection is provided by preventing either steering or forward self-mobility. NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 114 in 1990 to require that vehicles with an automatic transmission and a ‘‘park’’ position be shifted to ‘‘park’’ or become locked in park before the key can be removed to reduce incidents of vehicle rollaway. S4.2.2(a) was added in 1991 to permit key removal when an electrical failure occurred and the transmission could not be manually shifted into park, provided that steering was prevented for theft protection. The forward selfmobility feature does not prevent vehicle rollaway by itself. However, the parking brake used in combination with the forward self-mobility feature will prevent rollaway. In addition, as Nissan states in its petition, NHTSA recently granted inconsequential noncompliance petitions for similar noncompliances by Bentley (69 FR 67211, 11/16/04), Volkswagen (69 FR 67211, 11/16/04), and Porsche (70 FR 32398, 6/2/05). 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, Nissan’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: January 12, 2006. Daniel C. Smith, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. E6–524 Filed 1–18–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. AB–600 (Sub-No. 1X)] Yakima Interurban Lines Association— Abandonment Exemption—in Yakima County, WA Yakima Interurban Lines Association (YILA) has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart F—Exempt Abandonments to abandon a line of railroad known as the Naches Branch, from milepost 2.97 (near Yakima) to milepost 14.26 (near Naches), a distance E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3152-3153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-522]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23553; Notice 1]


Pacific Coast Retreaders, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision 
of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Pacific Coast Retreaders, Inc. (Pacific Coast) has determined that 
certain tires that it imported do not comply with S6.5(b) of 49 CFR 
571.119, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, ``New 
pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.'' Pacific Coast 
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), Pacific Coast 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 Pacific Coast'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 780 tires produced in March 
2005 by Linglong Rubber Company in China and imported by Pacific Coast 
in April 2005. One requirement of S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119, tire markings, 
is that the tire identification shall comply with 49 CFR Part 574, 
``Tire Identification and Recordkeeping,'' which includes the marking 
requirements of 574.5(b) DOT size code. The subject tires are missing 
the required tire size code.
    Pacific Coast believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to 
motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. 
Pacific Coast explains that, as a result of mold cleaning and repair, 
some of the tire size code symbols were not restamped after repair, and 
worn symbols were not re-traced. Pacific Coast states that ``the tire 
size is embossed in very larger (sic) raised characters on both 
sidewalls and [is] easily identifiable from a great distance.'' The 
petitioner states that as a result, there is no confusion as to the 
tire size.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments on this petition. 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 Federal Holidays. Comments may be submitted 
electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System Web site at 
https://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help'' to obtain instructions for filing 
the document electronically. Comments may be faxed to 1-202-493-2251, 
or may be submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to https://

[[Page 3153]]

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received 
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will 
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials 
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be 
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or 
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal 
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: February 21, 2006.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at CFR 
1.50 and 501.8.)

    Issued on: January 12, 2006.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E6-522 Filed 1-18-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P