Tireco, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66353-66354 [2011-27651]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices
Dimensional Information.’’ Persons
desiring to use newly designed
replaceable headlamp light sources are
required to submit interchangeability
and performance specifications to the
agency. After a short agency review to
assure completeness, the information is
placed in a public docket for use by any
person who would desire to
manufacture headlamp light sources for
highway motor vehicles. In Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108,
Lamps, reflective devices and associated
equipment,’’ part 564 submission are
referenced as being the source of
information regarding the performance
and interchangeability information for
legal headlamp light sources, whether
original equipment or replacement
equipment. Thus, the submitted
information about headlamp light
sources becomes the basis for
certification of compliance with safety
standards.
Estimated Total Annual Burden: 28.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 7.
(2) Title: Compliance Labeling of
Retroreflective Materials heavy Trailer
Conspicuity.
OMB Number: 2127–0569.
Type of Request: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Affected Public: Business or other for
profit organizations.
Abstract: Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 108, ‘‘Lamps
Reflective Devices, and Associated
Equipment,’’ specifies requirements for
vehicle lighting for the purposes of
reducing traffic accidents and their
tragic results by providing adequate
roadway illumination, improved vehicle
conspicuity, appropriate information
transmission through signal lamps, in
both day, night, and other conditions of
reduced visibility. For certifications and
identification purposes, the Standard
requires the permanent marking of the
letters ‘‘DOT–C2,’’ ‘‘DOT–C3’’, or ‘‘DOT
–C4’’ at least 3mm high at regular
intervals on retroreflective sheeting
material having adequate performance
to provide effective trailer conspicuity.
The manufacturers of new tractors
and trailers are required to certify that
their products are equipped with
retroreflective material complying with
the requirements of the standard. The
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) enforces this
and other standards through roadside
inspections of trucks. There is no
practical field test for the performance
requirements, and labeling is the only
objectives way of distinguishing trailer
conspicuity grade material from lower
performance material. Without labeling,
FMCSA will not be able to enforce the
performance requirements of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
standard and the compliance testing of
new tractors and trailers will be
complicated. Labeling is also important
to small trailer manufactures because it
may help them to certify compliance.
Because wider stripes or material of
lower brightness also can provide the
minimum safety performance, the
marking system serves the additional
role of identifying the minimum stripe
width required for retroreflective
brightness of the particular material.
Since the differences between the
brightness grades of suitable
retroreflective conspicuity material is
not obvious from inspection, the
marking system is necessary for tractor
and trailer manufacturers and repair
shops to assure compliance and for
FMCSA to inspect tractors and trailers
in use. Permanent labeling is used to
identify retroreflective material having
the minimum properties required for
effective conspicuity of trailers at night.
The information enables the FMCSA to
make compliance inspections, and it
aids tractor and trailer owners and
repairs shops in choosing the correct
repair materials for damaged tractors
and trailers. It also aids smaller trailer
manufacturers in certifying compliance
of their products.
The FMCSA will not be able to
determine whether trailers are properly
equipped during roadside inspections
without labeling. The use of cheaper
and more common reflective materials,
which are ineffective for the
application, would be expected in
repairs without the labeling
requirement.
Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 3.
Send comments, within 30
days, to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725–17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503,
Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
Comments are invited on: Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the Department,
including whether the information will
have practical utility; the accuracy of
the Department’s estimate of the burden
of the proposed information collection;
ways to enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
A Comment to OMB is most effective
if OMB receives it within 30 days of
publication.
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
66353
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 20,
2011.
Nathaniel Beuse,
Director, Office of Crash Avoidance
Standards.
[FR Doc. 2011–27656 Filed 10–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0047; Notice 2]
Tireco, Inc., Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance.
AGENCY:
Tireco, Inc., (Tireco), has
determined that approximately 6,170 of
its ‘‘GEO-Trac’’ brand P235/75R15
passenger car tires, manufactured
between June 12, 2009 and August 20,
2009 by the fabricating manufacturer,
the Shandong Linglong Tyre Co., Ltd.,
and imported into the United States by
Tireco, do not comply with paragraph
S5.5(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New
pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles.
Tireco has filed an appropriate report
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports (dated August 31, 2009).
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and the rule implementing
those provisions at 49 CFR part 556,
Tireco 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 Tireco’s petition
was published, with a 30-day public
comment period, on April 21, 2010, in
the Federal Register (75 FR 20879). 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–2010–
0047.’’
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 6,170 tires
imported into the United States by
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM
26OCN1
66354
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices
Tireco who identified the tires as ‘‘GeoTrac’’ brand P235/75R15 passenger car
tires. In consultation with the
fabricating manufacturer, the Shandong
Linglong Tyre Co., Ltd., Tireco has
determined that all of the noncompliant
tires were manufactured between June
12, 2009 (Serial Week 24) and August
20, 2009 (Serial Week 34). A total of
6,170 these noncompliant tires have
been recovered from its distributors and
dealers and are currently in Tireco’s
possession for relabeling. The remaining
tires (approximately 3,370) are still in
the hands of Tireco’s customers.
Tireco explains that the
noncompliance is that the markings on
the non-compliant tires specifying the
maximum inflation pressure in kPa and
in psi are reversed from the order
required by paragraph S5.5.5(c). The
Company said that the maximum
inflation pressure should have been
marked as ‘‘300 kPa (44 psi)’’ but were
‘‘inadvertently’’ marked on both
sidewalls with a maximum inflation
pressure of ‘‘44 kPa (300 psi).’’ Tireco
reported that this noncompliance was
brought to their attention on August 19,
2009 by one of the company’s
distributor customers.
Tireco argues that no vehicle operator
would ever inflate the tires to the
incorrect pressures that appear on the
sidewalls of the subject tires, and
specifically stated that ‘‘it would be
virtually impossible to do so.’’ Tireco
supports this conclusion with the
following statements:
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
• With respect to the erroneous psi
marking, no commercially available air
compressor used in tire retail stores, at gas
stations, or for home use has the capacity to
inflate tires to 300 psi, and consumers would
immediately be aware from their past
experience that a pressure of 300 psi could
not be correct.
• With respect to the erroneous kPa
marking, it [is] extremely unlikely that a
consumer would attempt to inflate the tires
to 44 kPa, since (1) Drivers in the United
States almost always utilize the psi parameter
rather than kPa value when they inflate their
tires; and (2) any driver who used the kPa
parameter would know that the 44 kPa value
was not correct, since all passenger car tires
have a maximum inflation pressure of at least
240 kPa. Moreover, even if a consumer were
to attempt to inflate the tires to 44 kPa
(which is equivalent to approximately 7 psi),
he or she would immediately be aware that
the tires were drastically underinflated, and
would not be in a drivable state.
Tireco concludes that the subject noncompliance ‘‘cannot result in the tires
being overloaded, or any other adverse
safety consequence to the tires or to the
vehicles on which they are mounted.’’
Additionally, Tireco cites three cases
which it believes support its conclusion
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
noncompliance and to remedy the
defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this
decision only applies to the 3,370 1
passenger car replacement tires that
Tireco no longer controlled at the time
that it determined that a noncompliance
existed.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA has decided that Tireco has met
its burden of persuasion that the subject
FMVSS No. 139 labeling
noncompliances are inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
• The subject tires meet or exceed all of
Tireco’s petition is granted and the
the substantive performance requirements of
petitioner is exempted from the
FMVSS No. 139.
• There have been no complaints regarding obligation of providing notification of,
and a remedy for, the subject
this issue from vehicle owners (the incorrect
markings were brought to Tireco’s attention
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118
by one of its distributors).
and 30120.
that NHTSA has previously granted tire
companies inconsequentiality
exemptions relating to errors in the
marking of maximum inflation pressure.
(See Michelin North America, Inc., 70
FR 10161 (March 2, 2005); Kumho Tire
Co., Inc., 71 FR 6129 (February 6, 2006);
and Michelin North America, Inc., 74 FR
10805 (March 12, 2009).
Furthermore, Tireco points out three
other substantive factors that support its
petition:
• The manufacturer of these tires,
Shandong Linglong Tyre Co., Ltd., has
corrected the molds at its factory, so that this
noncompliance will not be repeated in
current or future production.
Supported by all of the above stated
reasons, Tireco believes that the
described noncompliance of its tires to
meet the requirements of FMVSS No.
139 is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety, and that its petition, to exempt
it from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30120, should be granted.
NHTSA Decision: The agency agrees
with Tireco 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 noncompliances on
the operational safety of vehicles on
which these tires are mounted. In the
agency’s judgment, the incorrect
labeling of the tire inflation information
will not have any consequential effect
on motor vehicle safety because it is
extremely unlikely that the consumer
will inflate the tires to an incorrect
pressure.
The safety of people working in the
tire retread, repair, and recycling
industries was also to be considered. As
with consumers, it is extremely unlikely
that this noncompliance will cause
anyone working in those businesses to
incorrectly inflate these tires in a
manner that will cause a measureable
effect on motor vehicle safety.
NHTSA notes that the statutory
provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to
file petitions for a determination of
inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to
exempt manufacturers only from the
duties found in sections 30118 and
30120, respectively, to notify owners,
purchasers, and dealers of a defect or
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and
501.8)
Issued on: October 20, 2011.
Claude H. Harris,
Acting Associate Administrator for
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2011–27651 Filed 10–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[Docket No. FD 35544]
DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC and
DesertXpress HSR Corporation—
Construction and Operation
Exemption—in Victorville, CA and Las
Vegas, NV
AGENCY:
Surface Transportation Board,
DOT.
Notice of construction and
operation exemption.
ACTION:
The Board grants an
exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502 from
the prior approval requirements of 49
U.S.C. 10901 for DesertXpress
Enterprises, LLC and its subsidiary
(DXE) to build and operate a 190-mile
rail line between Victorville, Cal. and
Las Vegas, Nev., in order to provide
high-speed passenger rail service. This
exemption is subject to environmental
mitigation conditions and the condition
that DXE build the route designated as
environmentally preferable.
SUMMARY:
1 Tireco’s petition, which was filed under 49 CFR
part 556, requests an agency decision to exempt
Tireco as a manufacturer from the notification and
recall responsibilities of 49 CFR part 573 for 3, 370
of the affected tires. However, a decision on this
petition cannot relieve distributors and dealers of
the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant tires
under their control after Tireco notified them that
the subject noncompliance existed.
E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM
26OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66353-66354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27651]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0047; Notice 2]
Tireco, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Tireco, Inc., (Tireco), has determined that approximately
6,170 of its ``GEO-Trac'' brand P235/75R15 passenger car tires,
manufactured between June 12, 2009 and August 20, 2009 by the
fabricating manufacturer, the Shandong Linglong Tyre Co., Ltd., and
imported into the United States by Tireco, do not comply with paragraph
S5.5(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New
pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles. Tireco has filed an
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports (dated August 31, 2009).
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, Tireco 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 Tireco's petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on April 21, 2010, in the Federal Register (75
FR 20879). 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-2010-0047.''
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 6,170 tires imported into the United
States by
[[Page 66354]]
Tireco who identified the tires as ``Geo-Trac'' brand P235/75R15
passenger car tires. In consultation with the fabricating manufacturer,
the Shandong Linglong Tyre Co., Ltd., Tireco has determined that all of
the noncompliant tires were manufactured between June 12, 2009 (Serial
Week 24) and August 20, 2009 (Serial Week 34). A total of 6,170 these
noncompliant tires have been recovered from its distributors and
dealers and are currently in Tireco's possession for relabeling. The
remaining tires (approximately 3,370) are still in the hands of
Tireco's customers.
Tireco explains that the noncompliance is that the markings on the
non-compliant tires specifying the maximum inflation pressure in kPa
and in psi are reversed from the order required by paragraph S5.5.5(c).
The Company said that the maximum inflation pressure should have been
marked as ``300 kPa (44 psi)'' but were ``inadvertently'' marked on
both sidewalls with a maximum inflation pressure of ``44 kPa (300
psi).'' Tireco reported that this noncompliance was brought to their
attention on August 19, 2009 by one of the company's distributor
customers.
Tireco argues that no vehicle operator would ever inflate the tires
to the incorrect pressures that appear on the sidewalls of the subject
tires, and specifically stated that ``it would be virtually impossible
to do so.'' Tireco supports this conclusion with the following
statements:
With respect to the erroneous psi marking, no
commercially available air compressor used in tire retail stores, at
gas stations, or for home use has the capacity to inflate tires to
300 psi, and consumers would immediately be aware from their past
experience that a pressure of 300 psi could not be correct.
With respect to the erroneous kPa marking, it [is]
extremely unlikely that a consumer would attempt to inflate the
tires to 44 kPa, since (1) Drivers in the United States almost
always utilize the psi parameter rather than kPa value when they
inflate their tires; and (2) any driver who used the kPa parameter
would know that the 44 kPa value was not correct, since all
passenger car tires have a maximum inflation pressure of at least
240 kPa. Moreover, even if a consumer were to attempt to inflate the
tires to 44 kPa (which is equivalent to approximately 7 psi), he or
she would immediately be aware that the tires were drastically
underinflated, and would not be in a drivable state.
Tireco concludes that the subject non-compliance ``cannot result in
the tires being overloaded, or any other adverse safety consequence to
the tires or to the vehicles on which they are mounted.'' Additionally,
Tireco cites three cases which it believes support its conclusion that
NHTSA has previously granted tire companies inconsequentiality
exemptions relating to errors in the marking of maximum inflation
pressure. (See Michelin North America, Inc., 70 FR 10161 (March 2,
2005); Kumho Tire Co., Inc., 71 FR 6129 (February 6, 2006); and
Michelin North America, Inc., 74 FR 10805 (March 12, 2009).
Furthermore, Tireco points out three other substantive factors that
support its petition:
The subject tires meet or exceed all of the substantive
performance requirements of FMVSS No. 139.
There have been no complaints regarding this issue from
vehicle owners (the incorrect markings were brought to Tireco's
attention by one of its distributors).
The manufacturer of these tires, Shandong Linglong Tyre
Co., Ltd., has corrected the molds at its factory, so that this
noncompliance will not be repeated in current or future production.
Supported by all of the above stated reasons, Tireco believes that
the described noncompliance of its tires to meet the requirements of
FMVSS No. 139 is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition, to exempt it from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
NHTSA Decision: The agency agrees with Tireco 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 noncompliances on
the operational safety of vehicles on which these tires are mounted. In
the agency's judgment, the incorrect labeling of the tire inflation
information will not have any consequential effect on motor vehicle
safety because it is extremely unlikely that the consumer will inflate
the tires to an incorrect pressure.
The safety of people working in the tire retread, repair, and
recycling industries was also to be considered. As with consumers, it
is extremely unlikely that this noncompliance will cause anyone working
in those businesses to incorrectly inflate these tires in a manner that
will cause a measureable effect on motor vehicle safety.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the 3,370 \1\ passenger car replacement tires that
Tireco no longer controlled at the time that it determined that a
noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Tireco's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR part 556,
requests an agency decision to exempt Tireco as a manufacturer from
the notification and recall responsibilities of 49 CFR part 573 for
3, 370 of the affected tires. However, a decision on this petition
cannot relieve distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the
sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction
into interstate commerce of the noncompliant tires under their
control after Tireco notified them that the subject noncompliance
existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tireco
has met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 139
labeling noncompliances are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Tireco'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
CFR 1.50 and 501.8)
Issued on: October 20, 2011.
Claude H. Harris,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2011-27651 Filed 10-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
