Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 4396-4397 [06-731]

Download as PDF 4396 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2006 / Notices Comments Invited DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed TSO listed in this notice by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they desire to the above specified address. Comments received on the proposed TSO may be examined, before and after the comment closing date, in Room 815, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, weekdays except Federal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. All communications received on or before the closing date will be considered by the Director of the Aircraft Certification Service before issuing the final TSO. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Background The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined the probable cause of a recent aircraft accident to be pilot error, stating that the events that led to the accident were difficult for investigators to determine because of limited data. As a result of the limited data available to provide a more definitive cause of the accident, the NTSB recommended among other things, that the Federal Aviation Administration incorporate the European Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment’s proposed standards for a crash-protective video recording system into a TSO. We concurred with the NTSB’s recommendation, by offering proposed TSO–C176 for a crash-protective video recording system. How to Obtain Copies rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES You may get a copy of the proposed TSO–C26d from the Internet at: https:// www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/. See section entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for the complete address if requesting a copy by mail. Copies of SAE ARP5381 may be purchased from the Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Department 331, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096–0001. Copies can also be obtained through the SAE Internet Web site at https://www.sae.org. Issued in Washington, DC, on January 20, 2006. Susan J.M. Cabler, Assistant Manager, Aircraft Engineering Division, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 06–723 Filed 1–25–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–M VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:10 Jan 25, 2006 Jkt 205001 [Docket No. NHTSA 2005–23171; Notice 2] Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire, LLC (Bridgestone Firestone) has determined that certain tires that it produced in 2005 do not comply with S4.3.2 of 49 CFR 571.109, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109, ‘‘New pneumatic tires.’’ Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Bridgestone Firestone 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 December 9, 2005 in the Federal Register (70 FR 73323). NHTSA received no comments. Affected are a total of approximately 50 P205/70R15 Le Mans Champion SE tires produced in 2005. S4.3.2 of FMVSS No. 109 refers to 49 CFR Part 575.4, section (d) of which requires that the sidewall stamping include the date of manufacture. The noncompliant tires are stamped HYMOLCM, while the correct stamping including the date of manufacture should be HYMOLCM2705. Bridgestone Firestone believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Bridgestone Firestone states that ‘‘[t]he noncompliant tires meet or exceed all performance requirements of FMVSS No. 109 and will have no impact on the operational performance or safety of vehicles on which these tires are mounted.’’ The petitioner further states, The week and year of [the] production portion of the Tire Identification Number (TIN) becomes important in the event of a safety campaign so that the consumer may properly identify the recalled tire(s). For this mislabeling, any safety campaign communication, if necessary, could include in the listing of recalled TINs and (sic) the TIN for these tires with the missing or blank date of production so that the consumer would know that these mislabeled tires are included in the recall. NHTSA agrees with Bridgestone Firestone that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. As Bridgestone Firestone points out, a consumer notification of a recall of the PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 tires could be accomplished by referring to the TIN. Bridgestone Firestone has corrected the problem. 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, Bridgestone Firestone’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 20, 2006. Daniel C. Smith, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. E6–958 Filed 1–25–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA 2005–23169; Notice 2] Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (Cooper) has determined that certain tires that it produced in 2005 do not comply with S4.3(a) of 49 CFR 571.109, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109, ‘‘New Pneumatic Tires’’ and with 49 CFR Part 574.5, ‘‘Tire Identification Requirements.’’ Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Cooper 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 December 9, 2005 in the Federal Register (70 FR 73324). NHTSA received no comments. Affected are a total of approximately 668 size 235/70R15 tires produced during the period January 9, 2005 through June 18, 2005. S4.3(a) and Part 574.5(b) require a tire identification number (TIN) on the tire which includes a size designation. The noncompliant tires were molded with the letters ‘‘4E’’ as the size designation. The correct stamping should have been ‘‘TY.’’ Cooper believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Cooper states that the purpose of the TIN is to E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2006 / Notices facilitate notifying consumers in the event of a recall. Cooper says that if it was required to notify purchasers, ‘‘the subject tires could be easily identified.’’Cooper points out that the correct tire size is stamped on the sidewall, and the tires meet all other requirements of FMVSS No. 109 and 49 CFR 574.5. NHTSA agrees with Cooper that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. As Cooper points out, the tires do not have sidewall markings which provide the correct size for the user of this information. In addition, the incorrect marking does not affect the ability to identify the tires in the event of recall. Cooper has corrected the problem. 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, Cooper’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 20, 2006. Daniel C. Smith, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. 06–731 Filed 1–25–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA 2005–23168; Notice 2] rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (Cooper) has determined that certain tires that it produced in 2005 do not comply with S4.3(a) of 49 CFR 571.109, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109, ‘‘New pneumatic tires’’ and with 49 CFR 574.5, ‘‘Tire Identification Requirements.’’ Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Cooper 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 December 9, 2005 in the VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:10 Jan 25, 2006 Jkt 205001 Federal Register (70 FR 73324). NHTSA received no comments. Affected are a total of approximately 488 size 225/70R15 tires produced during the period January 30, 2005 through April 16, 2005. S4.3(a) and Part 574.5(b) require a tire identification number (TIN) on the tire which includes a size designation. The noncompliant tires were molded with the letters ‘‘X5’’ as the size designation. The correct stamping should have been ‘‘35.’’ Cooper believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Cooper states that the purpose of the tire identification number is to facilitate notifying consumers in the event of a recall. Cooper says that if it was required to notify purchasers, ‘‘the subject tires could be easily identified.’’ Cooper points out that the correct tire size appears elsewhere on the tire, including twice on each sidewall, and the tires meet all other requirements of FMVSS No. 109 and 49 CFR 574.5. NHTSA agrees with Cooper that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. As Cooper points out, the tires do have sidewall markings which provide the correct size for the user of this information. In addition, the incorrect marking does not affect the ability to identify the tires in the event of recall. Cooper has corrected the problem. 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, Cooper’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 20, 2006. Daniel C. Smith, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. E6–959 Filed 1–25–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. AB–6 (Sub-No. 432X)] BNSF Railway Company— Abandonment Exemption—in Walsh County, ND BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) has filed a notice of exemption under 49 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 4397 CFR part 1152 subpart F—Exempt Abandonments to abandon a 7.12-mile line of railroad between milepost 144.21 at Grafton, and milepost 137.09, near Voss, in Walsh County, ND. The line traverses United States Postal Service Zip Codes 58237 and 58261. BNSF has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead traffic on the line that would have to be rerouted; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental reports), 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met. As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under Oregon Short Line R. Co.— Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979). To address whether this condition adequately protects affected employees, a petition for partial revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) must be filed. Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be effective on February 25, 2006, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,1 formal expressions of intent to file an OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2),2 and trail use/rail banking requests under 49 CFR 1152.29 must be filed by February 3, 2006. Petitions to reopen or requests for public use conditions under 49 CFR 1152.28 must be filed by February 15, 2006, with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423–0001. A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to BNSF’s representative: Sidney L. Strickland, Jr., 1 The Board will grant a stay if an informed decision on environmental issues (whether raised by a party or by the Board’s Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) in its independent investigation) cannot be made before the exemption’s effective date. See Exemption of Outof-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any request for a stay should be filed as soon as possible so that the Board may take appropriate action before the exemption’s effective date. 2 Each OFA must be accompanied by the filing fee, which is currently set at $1,200. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25). E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 17 (Thursday, January 26, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4396-4397]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-731]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2005-23169; Notice 2]


Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (Cooper) has determined that certain 
tires that it produced in 2005 do not comply with S4.3(a) of 49 CFR 
571.109, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109, ``New 
Pneumatic Tires'' and with 49 CFR Part 574.5, ``Tire Identification 
Requirements.'' Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Cooper 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 December 9, 2005 in the Federal Register (70 FR 
73324). NHTSA received no comments.
    Affected are a total of approximately 668 size 235/70R15 tires 
produced during the period January 9, 2005 through June 18, 2005. 
S4.3(a) and Part 574.5(b) require a tire identification number (TIN) on 
the tire which includes a size designation. The noncompliant tires were 
molded with the letters ``4E'' as the size designation. The correct 
stamping should have been ``TY.''
    Cooper believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Cooper 
states that the purpose of the TIN is to

[[Page 4397]]

facilitate notifying consumers in the event of a recall. Cooper says 
that if it was required to notify purchasers, ``the subject tires could 
be easily identified.''Cooper points out that the correct tire size is 
stamped on the sidewall, and the tires meet all other requirements of 
FMVSS No. 109 and 49 CFR 574.5.
    NHTSA agrees with Cooper that the noncompliance is inconsequential 
to motor vehicle safety. As Cooper points out, the tires do not have 
sidewall markings which provide the correct size for the user of this 
information. In addition, the incorrect marking does not affect the 
ability to identify the tires in the event of recall. Cooper has 
corrected the problem.
    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, 
Cooper'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 20, 2006.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 06-731 Filed 1-25-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M