Michelin North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 17828-17829 [2010-7875]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
17828
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Notices
Goodyear also points out that NHTSA
has previously granted petitions for
sidewall marking noncompliances that
it believes are similar to the present
noncompliance.
In summation, Goodyear states that it
believes that because the
noncompliances are inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety that no corrective
action is warranted.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
NHTSA Decision
The agency agrees with Goodyear that
the noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. The agency
believes that the true measure of
inconsequentiality to motor vehicle
safety in this case is that there is no
effect of the noncompliance on the
operational safety of vehicles on which
these tires are mounted. The safety of
people working in the tire retread,
repair, and recycling industries must
also be considered. Although tire
construction affects the strength and
durability, neither the agency nor the
tire industry provides information
relating tire strength and durability to
the number of plies and types of ply
cord material in the tread and sidewall.
Therefore, tire dealers and customers
should consider the tire construction
information along with other
information such as the load capacity,
maximum inflation pressure, and tread
wear, temperature, and traction ratings,
to assess performance capabilities of
various tires. 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 ply material in a tire.
The agency also believes the
noncompliance will have no measurable
effect on the safety of the tire retread,
repair, and recycling industries. The use
of steel cord construction in the
sidewall and tread is the primary safety
concern of these industries. In this case,
since the tire sidewalls are marked
correctly for the number of steel plies,
this potential safety concern does not
exist.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA has decided that Goodyear has
met its burden of persuasion that the
subject FMVSS No. 139 labeling
noncompliance 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 subject
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118
and 30120.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:18 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and
501.8.
Issued on: April 1, 2010.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2010–7874 Filed 4–6–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0005; Notice 2]
Michelin North America, Inc., Grant of
Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
Michelin North America, Inc.
(Michelin), has determined that certain
passenger car tires manufactured
between September 18, 2008, and
October 10, 2008, did not fully comply
with paragraphs S5.5(e) and S5.5(f) of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic
Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Michelin
has filed an appropriate report pursuant
to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and the rule implementing
those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556,
Michelin 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. Notice of receipt of
the petition was published, with a
30-day public comment period, on
February 19, 2009, in the Federal
Register (74 FR 7738). No comments
were received. To view the petition and
all supporting documents log onto the
Federal Docket Management System
Web site at:
https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2009–
0005.’’
For further information on this
decision, contact Mr. George Gillespie,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), telephone
(202) 366–5299, facsimile (202) 366–
7002.
Affected are approximately 2,240 size
P195/60R15 (87T) Michelin Harmony
brand passenger car tires manufactured
between September 18, 2008, and
October 10, 2008, at Michelin’s plant
located in Pictou, Canada.
Approximately 1,590 of these tires have
been delivered to Michelin’s customers.
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The remaining tires (approximately 650)
are being held in Michelin’s possession
until they can be correctly relabeled.
Paragraphs S5.5(e)and S5.5(f) of
FMVSS No. 139 require in pertinent
part:
S5.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in
paragraphs (a) through (i) of S5.5, each tire
must be marked on each sidewall with the
information specified in S5.5(a) through (d)
and on one sidewall with the information
specified in S5.5(e) through (i) according to
the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this
standard. The markings must be placed
between the maximum section width and the
bead on at least one sidewall, unless the
maximum section width of the tire is located
in an area that is not more than one-fourth
of the distance from the bead to the shoulder
of the tire. If the maximum section width
falls within that area, those markings must
appear between the bead and a point one-half
the distance from the bead to the shoulder of
the tire, on at least one sidewall. The
markings must be in letters and numerals not
less than 0.078 inches high and raised above
or sunk below the tire surface not less than
0.015 inches* * *
(e) The generic name of each cord material
used in the plies (both sidewall and tread
area) of the tire;* * *
(f) The actual number of plies in the
sidewall, and the actual number of plies in
the tread area, if different * * *
Michelin explains that the
noncompliance is that, due to a mold
labeling error, the sidewall marking on
the reference side of the tires incorrectly
describes the number of plies in the
tread area of the tires. Specifically, the
tires in question were inadvertently
manufactured with ‘‘Tread Plies: 2
Polyester + 2 polyamide + 2 steel;
Sidewall plies: 2 polyester’’ marked on
the intended outboard sidewall. The
labeling should have been ‘‘Tread Plies:
2 Polyester + 1 polyamide + 2 steel;
Sidewall plies: 2 polyester’’ (emphasis
added). Michelin also explains that the
marking on the other sidewall of the
tires correctly describes the plies in the
tread area of the tires.
Michelin states that it discovered the
mold labeling error that caused the noncompliance during a routine quality
audit.
Michelin argues that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety because the
noncompliant sidewall marking does
not affect the strength of the tires and all
other labeling requirements have been
met.
Michelin points out that NHTSA has
previously granted petitions for sidewall
marking noncompliances that Michelin
believes are similar to the instant
noncompliance.
Michelin also stated that it has
corrected the problem that caused these
E:\FR\FM\07APN1.SGM
07APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Notices
errors so that they will not be repeated
in future production.
In summation, Michelin states that it
believes that because the
noncompliances are inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety that no corrective
action is warranted.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
NHTSA Decision
The agency agrees with Michelin that
the noncompliances are inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety. The agency
believes that the true measure of
inconsequentiality to motor vehicle
safety in this case is that there is no
effect of the noncompliances on the
operational safety of vehicles on which
these tires are mounted. The safety of
people working in the tire retread,
repair, and recycling industries must
also be considered. Although tire
construction affects the strength and
durability, neither the agency nor the
tire industry provides information
relating tire strength and durability to
the number of plies and types of ply
cord material in the tread and sidewall.
Therefore, tire dealers and customers
should consider the tire construction
information along with other
information such as the load capacity,
maximum inflation pressure, and tread
wear, temperature, and traction ratings,
to assess performance capabilities of
various tires. 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 ply material in a tire.
The agency also believes the
noncompliance will have no measurable
effect on the safety of the tire retread,
repair, and recycling industries. The use
of steel cord construction in the
sidewall and tread is the primary safety
concern of these industries. In this case,
since the tire sidewalls are marked
correctly for the number of steel plies,
this potential safety concern does not
exist.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA has decided that Michelin has
met its burden of persuasion that the
subject FMVSS No. 139 labeling
noncompliances are inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
Michelin’s petition is granted and the
petitioner is exempted from the
obligation of providing notification of,
and a remedy for, the subject
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118
and 30120.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and
501.8.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:18 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
Issued on: April 1, 2010.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2010–7875 Filed 4–6–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2005–23112]
Motorcyclist Advisory Council to the
Federal Highway Administration
AGENCY: Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of meeting of advisory
committee.
SUMMARY: This document announces the
eighth meeting of the Motorcyclist
Advisory Council to the Federal
Highway Administration (MAC–
FHWA). The purpose of this meeting is
to advise the Secretary of
Transportation, through the
Administrator of the FHWA, on
infrastructure issues of concern to
motorcyclists, including: (1) Barrier
design; (2) road design, construction,
and maintenance practices; and (3) the
architecture and implementation of
intelligent transportation system
technologies, pursuant to section 1914
of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU).
DATES: The eighth meeting of the MAC–
FHWA is scheduled for May 13 from 9
a.m. until 5 p.m. This meeting will be
the final meeting of the MAC–FHWA
under the SAFETEA–LU Authorization.
ADDRESSES: The eighth MAC–FHWA
meeting will be held at the Crystal City
Marriott, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, VA 22202.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Michael Griffith, the Designated Federal
Official, Office of Safety, (202) 366–
2288, mike.griffith@dot.gov, or Mr.
Keith D. Williams, Office of Safety,
(202) 366–9212, keith.williams@dot.gov,
FHWA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Background
On August 10, 2005, the President
signed into law the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU)
(Pub. L. 109–59, 119 Stat. 1144). Section
1914 of SAFETEA–LU mandates the
establishment of the Motorcyclist
Advisory Council as follows: ‘‘The
Secretary, acting through the
Administrator of the Federal Highway
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17829
Administration, in consultation with the
Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the
Senate, shall appoint a Motorcyclist
Advisory Council to coordinate with
and advise the Administrator on
infrastructure issues of concern to
motorcyclists, including—
(1) Barrier design;
(2) Road design, construction, and
maintenance practices; and
(3) The architecture and
implementation of intelligent
transportation system technologies.’’
In addition, section 1914 specifies the
membership of the council: ‘‘The
Council shall consist of not more than
10 members of the motorcycling
community with professional expertise
in national motorcyclist safety
advocacy, including—
(1) At least—
(A) One member recommended by a
national motorcyclist association;
(B) One member recommended by a
national motorcycle rider’s foundation;
(C) One representative of the National
Association of State Motorcycle Safety
Administrators;
(D) Two members of State
motorcyclists’ organizations;
(E) One member recommended by a
national organization that represents the
builders of highway infrastructure;
(F) One member recommended by a
national association that represents the
traffic safety systems industry; and
(G) One member of a national safety
organization; and
(2) At least one, and not more than
two, motorcyclists who are traffic
system design engineers or State
transportation department officials.’’
To carry out this requirement, the
FHWA published a notice of intent to
form an advisory committee in the
Federal Register on December 23, 2005
(70 FR 76353). This notice, consistent
with the requirements of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, announced
the establishment of the Council and
invited comments and nominations for
membership. The MAC–FHWA was
officially chartered for a 2-year period
on July 31, 2006, and was extended by
act of the Secretary for an additional 2year term. That extension expires on
July 31, 2010. The FHWA announced
the ten members selected to the Council
in the Federal Register on October 5,
2006 (71 FR 58903). An electronic copy
of this document and the previous
Federal Register notices associated with
the MAC–FHWA can be downloaded
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
at: https://www.regulations.gov and the
Office of the Federal Register’s home
E:\FR\FM\07APN1.SGM
07APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17828-17829]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7875]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0005; Notice 2]
Michelin North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
Michelin North America, Inc. (Michelin), has determined that
certain passenger car tires manufactured between September 18, 2008,
and October 10, 2008, did not fully comply with paragraphs S5.5(e) and
S5.5(f) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 139, New
Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Michelin has filed an
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556, Michelin 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. Notice of
receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day public comment
period, on February 19, 2009, in the Federal Register (74 FR 7738). No
comments were received. To view the petition and all supporting
documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System Web site at:
https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions
to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2009-0005.''
For further information on this decision, contact Mr. George
Gillespie, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5299,
facsimile (202) 366-7002.
Affected are approximately 2,240 size P195/60R15 (87T) Michelin
Harmony brand passenger car tires manufactured between September 18,
2008, and October 10, 2008, at Michelin's plant located in Pictou,
Canada. Approximately 1,590 of these tires have been delivered to
Michelin's customers. The remaining tires (approximately 650) are being
held in Michelin's possession until they can be correctly relabeled.
Paragraphs S5.5(e)and S5.5(f) of FMVSS No. 139 require in pertinent
part:
S5.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in paragraphs (a)
through (i) of S5.5, each tire must be marked on each sidewall with
the information specified in S5.5(a) through (d) and on one sidewall
with the information specified in S5.5(e) through (i) according to
the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this standard. The markings
must be placed between the maximum section width and the bead on at
least one sidewall, unless the maximum section width of the tire is
located in an area that is not more than one-fourth of the distance
from the bead to the shoulder of the tire. If the maximum section
width falls within that area, those markings must appear between the
bead and a point one-half the distance from the bead to the shoulder
of the tire, on at least one sidewall. The markings must be in
letters and numerals not less than 0.078 inches high and raised
above or sunk below the tire surface not less than 0.015 inches* * *
(e) The generic name of each cord material used in the plies
(both sidewall and tread area) of the tire;* * *
(f) The actual number of plies in the sidewall, and the actual
number of plies in the tread area, if different * * *
Michelin explains that the noncompliance is that, due to a mold
labeling error, the sidewall marking on the reference side of the tires
incorrectly describes the number of plies in the tread area of the
tires. Specifically, the tires in question were inadvertently
manufactured with ``Tread Plies: 2 Polyester + 2 polyamide + 2 steel;
Sidewall plies: 2 polyester'' marked on the intended outboard sidewall.
The labeling should have been ``Tread Plies: 2 Polyester + 1 polyamide
+ 2 steel; Sidewall plies: 2 polyester'' (emphasis added). Michelin
also explains that the marking on the other sidewall of the tires
correctly describes the plies in the tread area of the tires.
Michelin states that it discovered the mold labeling error that
caused the non-compliance during a routine quality audit.
Michelin argues that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety because the noncompliant sidewall marking does not
affect the strength of the tires and all other labeling requirements
have been met.
Michelin points out that NHTSA has previously granted petitions for
sidewall marking noncompliances that Michelin believes are similar to
the instant noncompliance.
Michelin also stated that it has corrected the problem that caused
these
[[Page 17829]]
errors so that they will not be repeated in future production.
In summation, Michelin states that it believes that because the
noncompliances are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety that no
corrective action is warranted.
NHTSA Decision
The agency agrees with Michelin that the noncompliances are
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The agency believes that the
true measure of inconsequentiality to motor vehicle safety in this case
is that there is no effect of the noncompliances on the operational
safety of vehicles on which these tires are mounted. The safety of
people working in the tire retread, repair, and recycling industries
must also be considered. Although tire construction affects the
strength and durability, neither the agency nor the tire industry
provides information relating tire strength and durability to the
number of plies and types of ply cord material in the tread and
sidewall. Therefore, tire dealers and customers should consider the
tire construction information along with other information such as the
load capacity, maximum inflation pressure, and tread wear, temperature,
and traction ratings, to assess performance capabilities of various
tires. 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 ply material in a tire.
The agency also believes the noncompliance will have no measurable
effect on the safety of the tire retread, repair, and recycling
industries. The use of steel cord construction in the sidewall and
tread is the primary safety concern of these industries. In this case,
since the tire sidewalls are marked correctly for the number of steel
plies, this potential safety concern does not exist.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Michelin
has met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 139
labeling noncompliances are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Michelin's petition is granted and the petitioner is
exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy
for, the subject noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: April 1, 2010.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2010-7875 Filed 4-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
