Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 71679-71680 [2012-29135]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Notices
Statement is available for review in the
Federal Register published on April 11,
2000, (65 FR 19477–78).
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: January 2,
2013.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
Delegations of authority at CFR 1.95 and
501.8.
Issued on: November 28, 2012.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012–29142 Filed 11–30–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0108; Notice 1]
Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations,
LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
AGENCY:
Bridgestone Americas Tire
Operations, LLC (BRIDGESTONE),1 has
determined that certain Bridgestone
brand tires manufactured between June
19, 2011 and March 17, 2012, do not
fully comply with paragraph S5.5(f) of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic
Radial Tires for Light Vehicles.
Bridgestone has filed an appropriate
report dated July 19, 2012, pursuant to
49 CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49
CFR part 556), Bridgestone submitted a
petition 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 Bridgestone’s
petition is published under 49 U.S.C.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
1 Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, is
a manufacturer of replacement equipment and is
registered under the laws of the state of Delaware.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:30 Nov 30, 2012
Jkt 229001
30118 and 30120 and does not represent
any agency decision or other exercise of
judgment concerning the merits of the
petition.
Vehicles Involved: Affected are
approximately 1,102 Firestone Firehawk
Wide Oval AS size 245/40R19 and 245/
35R20 brand tires manufactured
between June 19, 2011, and March 17,
2012. Only 97 of the affected tires are
no longer under the control of the
petitioner. Therefore, only those 97 tires
are the subject of this petition.
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,
these provisions only apply to the
subject 97 2 tires that Bridgestone no
longer controlled at the time it
determined that the noncompliance
existed.
Noncompliance: Bridgestone 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 actual
number of plies in the tread area of the
tires as required by paragraph S5.5(f).
Specifically, the tires in question were
inadvertently manufactured with
‘‘TREAD 1 POLYESTER 2 STEEL 1
NYLON.’’ The labeling should have
been ‘‘TREAD 1 POLYESTER 2 STEEL
2 NYLON.’’
Rule Text: Paragraph S5.5 of FMVSS
No. 139 requires 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 side-wall 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
2 Bridgestone’s petition, which was filed under 49
CFR part 556, requests an agency decision to
exempt Bridgestone as an equipment manufacturer
from the notification and recall responsibilities of
49 CFR part 573 for the 97 affected tires that it still
controls. However, a decision on this petition will
not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, introduction
or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their
control after Bridgestone notified them that the
subject noncompliance existed. The 1,005 affected
tires that Bridgestone still controls must be
remedied or destroyed.
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
71679
of the tire. If the maximum section width that
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 * * *
(f) The actual number of plies in the
sidewall, and the actual number of plies in
the tread area, if different * * *
Summary of Bridgestone’s Analysis and
Arguments
Bridgestone believes that while the
noncompliant tires are mislabeled; the
subject tires meet or exceed all
performance requirements as required
in part by FMVSS No. 139 and that the
noncompliant labeling has no impact on
the operational performance or safety of
vehicles on which these tires are
mounted.
Bridgestone also points out that
NHTSA has previously granted similar
petitions for non-compliances in
sidewall markings.
Bridgestone has additionally informed
NHTSA that it has corrected future
production and will re-label the 1,005
contained tires to reflect correct
construction.
In summation, Bridgestone believes
that the described noncompliance of its
tires 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.
Comments: 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:
a. By mail addressed to: U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M–30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590.
b. By hand delivery to U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M–30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590. The Docket Section is open
on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except Federal Holidays.
c. Electronically: by logging onto the
Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at https://
www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Comments may also be faxed to 1–202–
493–2251.
E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM
03DEN1
71680
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Notices
Comments must be written in the
English language, and be no greater than
15 pages in length, although there is no
limit to the length of necessary
attachments to the comments. If
comments are submitted in hard copy
form, please ensure that two copies are
provided. If you wish to receive
confirmation that your comments were
received, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard with the comments.
Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
Documents submitted to a docket may
be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may
also be viewed on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following
the online instructions for accessing the
dockets. DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the
Federal Register published on April 11,
2000, (65 FR 19477–78).
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: January 2,
2013.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at CFR 1.95 and
501.8.
facilities in East Chicago, Ind. BERR will
interchange traffic with the Indiana
Harbor Belt Railroad Company.
The transaction may be consummated
on or after December 16, 2012 (30 days
after the notice of exemption was filed).
BERR certifies that its projected
annual revenues as a result of this
transaction will not exceed those that
would qualify it as a Class III rail carrier
and will not exceed $5 million.
If the verified notice contains false or
misleading information, the exemption
is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the
exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)
may be filed at any time. The filing of
a petition to revoke will not
automatically stay the effectiveness of
the exemption.2 Petitions to stay must
be filed no later than December 7, 2012
(at least seven days before the
exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all
pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD
35698, must be filed with the Surface
Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20423–0001. In
addition, a copy of each pleading must
be served on David C. Dillon, 111 West
Washington Street, Suite 1023, Chicago,
IL 60602.
Board decisions and notices are
available on our Web site at
www.stb.dot.gov.
Decided: November 27, 2012.
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell,
Director, Office of Proceedings.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Unit.
[FR Doc. 2012–29051 Filed 11–30–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
Issued on: November 28, 2012.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012–29135 Filed 11–30–12; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
[Docket No. FD 35676 (Sub-No. 1)]
Surface Transportation Board
BNSF Railway Company—Temporary
Trackage Rights Exemption—Union
Pacific Railroad Company
[Docket No. FD 35698]
AGENCY:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board,
DOT.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Buckeye East Chicago Railroad, LLC—
Acquisition and Operation
Exemption—Buckeye Partners, L.P.
ACTION:
Buckeye East Chicago Railroad, LLC
(BERR), a noncarrier, has filed a verified
notice of exemption under 49 CFR
1150.31 to acquire from Buckeye
Partners, L.P., a noncarrier, and to
operate approximately 7,065 feet (1.34
miles) of track,1 existing railroad rightof-way, and bulk liquid transloading
SUMMARY:
1 Applicant states that the track does not have
designated mileposts.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:30 Nov 30, 2012
Jkt 229001
Partial Revocation of
Exemption.
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the
Board revokes the class exemption as it
2 Upon effectiveness of this exemption, only
BERR will be authorized to operate the subject track
and transloading facilities. In its filing, BERR states
that it has reached an agreement, attached to the
filing, with Landisville Railroad, LLC (Landisville),
a Class III rail carrier, to operate the track and
facilities. However, Landisville does not have Board
authority to conduct those operations and may not
do so until it seeks and obtains appropriate Board
authority.
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
pertains to the trackage rights described
in Docket No. FD 35676 1 to permit the
trackage rights to expire at midnight on
December 31, 2012, in accordance with
the agreement of the parties, subject to
the employee protective conditions set
forth in Oregon Short Line Railroad—
Abandonment Portion Goshen Branch
Between Firth & Ammon, in Bingham &
Bonneville Counties, Idaho, 360 I.C.C.
91 (1979).
This exemption will be effective
on January 3, 2013. Petitions to stay
must be filed by December 13, 2012.
Petitions for reconsideration must be
filed by December 24, 2012.
DATES:
An original and ten copies
of all pleadings, referring to Docket No.
FD 35676 (Sub-No. 1), must be filed
with the Surface Transportation Board,
395 E Street SW., Washington, DC
20423–0001. In addition, a copy of each
pleading must be served on BNSF’s
representative: Karl Morell, Of Counsel,
Ball Janik LLP, 655 Fifteenth Street
NW., Suite 225, Washington, DC 20005.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scott M. Zimmerman, (202) 245–0386.
[Assistance for the hearing impaired is
available through the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–
800–877–8339.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Additional information is contained in
the Board’s decision. Board decisions
and notices are available on our Web
site at www.stb.dot.gov.
Decided: November 26, 2012.
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice
Chairman Mulvey, and Commissioner
Begeman.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2012–29053 Filed 11–30–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
1 On September 18, 2012, BNSF filed a verified
notice of exemption under the Board’s class
exemption procedures at 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). The
notice covered the agreement by Union Pacific
Railroad Company (UP) to grant local trackage
rights to BNSF Railway Company over UP’s lines
between: (1) UP milepost 93.2 at Stockton, Cal., on
UP’s Oakland Subdivision, and UP milepost 219.4
at Elsey, Cal., on UP’s Canyon Subdivision, a
distance of 126.2 miles; and (2) UP milepost 219.4
at Elsey, and UP milepost 280.7 at Keddie, Cal., on
UP’s Canyon Subdivision, a distance of 61.3 miles.
See BNSF Ry.–Temp. Trackage Rights Exemption–
Union Pac. R.R., FD 35676 (STB served Oct. 4,
2012). In its petition for partial revocation, BNSF
states that the trackage rights are only temporary
rights, but, because they are ‘‘local’’ rather than
‘‘overhead’’ rights, they do not qualify for the
Board’s class exemption for temporary trackage
rights at 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(8).
E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM
03DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 232 (Monday, December 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71679-71680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29135]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0108; Notice 1]
Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Receipt of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC (BRIDGESTONE),\1\
has determined that certain Bridgestone brand tires manufactured
between June 19, 2011 and March 17, 2012, do not fully comply with
paragraph S5.5(f) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Bridgestone has
filed an appropriate report dated July 19, 2012, pursuant to 49 CFR
Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, is a manufacturer
of replacement equipment and is registered under the laws of the
state of Delaware.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), Bridgestone submitted a petition 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 Bridgestone'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.
Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 1,102 Firestone
Firehawk Wide Oval AS size 245/40R19 and 245/35R20 brand tires
manufactured between June 19, 2011, and March 17, 2012. Only 97 of the
affected tires are no longer under the control of the petitioner.
Therefore, only those 97 tires are the subject of this petition.
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, these provisions
only apply to the subject 97 \2\ tires that Bridgestone no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Bridgestone's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR part
556, requests an agency decision to exempt Bridgestone as an
equipment manufacturer from the notification and recall
responsibilities of 49 CFR part 573 for the 97 affected tires that
it still controls. However, a decision on this petition will not
relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the
sale, offer for sale, introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control
after Bridgestone notified them that the subject noncompliance
existed. The 1,005 affected tires that Bridgestone still controls
must be remedied or destroyed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noncompliance: Bridgestone 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 actual number of plies in
the tread area of the tires as required by paragraph S5.5(f).
Specifically, the tires in question were inadvertently manufactured
with ``TREAD 1 POLYESTER 2 STEEL 1 NYLON.'' The labeling should have
been ``TREAD 1 POLYESTER 2 STEEL 2 NYLON.''
Rule Text: Paragraph S5.5 of FMVSS No. 139 requires 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 side-
wall 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 that 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 * * *
(f) The actual number of plies in the sidewall, and the actual
number of plies in the tread area, if different * * *
Summary of Bridgestone's Analysis and Arguments
Bridgestone believes that while the noncompliant tires are
mislabeled; the subject tires meet or exceed all performance
requirements as required in part by FMVSS No. 139 and that the
noncompliant labeling has no impact on the operational performance or
safety of vehicles on which these tires are mounted.
Bridgestone also points out that NHTSA has previously granted
similar petitions for non-compliances in sidewall markings.
Bridgestone has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected
future production and will re-label the 1,005 contained tires to
reflect correct construction.
In summation, Bridgestone believes that the described noncompliance
of its tires 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.
Comments: 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:
a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays.
c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed
to 1-202-493-2251.
[[Page 71680]]
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
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: January 2, 2013.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Issued on: November 28, 2012.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012-29135 Filed 11-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P