[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17830-17831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7870]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0024; Notice 1]
Continental Tire North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Continental Tire North America, Inc.,(Continental), has determined
that certain passenger car tires manufactured between March of 2007 and
June of 2009 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. Continental 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) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), Continental 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 Continental'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 approximately 28,169 size 235/55R18 100V SL
Continental brand CrossContact UHP model passenger car tires
manufactured between March of 2007 and June of 2009 at Continental's
plant located in Otrokovice, Czech Republic. A total of 8,858 of these
tires have been delivered to Continental's customers. The remaining
tires (approximately 19,311) are being held in Continental's possession
until they can be correctly relabeled.
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 tires that have already passed from the manufacturer
to an owner, purchaser, or dealer.
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 * * *
Continental explains that the noncompliance is that, due to a mold
stamping anomaly, the sidewall marking on the tires incorrectly
describes the actual generic name and number of the body plies.
Specifically, the tires in question were inadvertently manufactured
with ``TREAD 6 PLIES: 2 POLYESTER + 2 STEEL + 2 NYLON; SIDEWALL 2 PLY
POLYESTER.'' The labeling should have been ``TREAD 5 PLIES: 1 RAYON + 2
STEEL + 2 NYLON; SIDEWALL 1 PLY RAYON.'' Continental states that all
other sidewall identification markings and safety information are
correct.
Continental states that it discovered the mold stamping problem
that caused the non-compliance during a specification change.
Continental argues that this non-compliant sidewall marking is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety as it ``does not affect the
safety, performance and durability of the tire; the tires were built as
designed.'' In addition, Continental states that the tires comply with
all other NHTSA requirements.
Continental said that it performs ongoing compliance testing ``to
assure tire performance'' and that ``all tires included in this
petition will meet or exceed the performance requirements of FMVSS
139.'' Continental further states that ``there will be no operational
impact on the performance or safety of vehicles on which these tires
are mounted.''
Continental points out that NHTSA has previously granted similar
petitions for non-compliances in sidewall marking.
Continental also stated that it has corrected the problem that
caused these errors so that they will not be repeated in future
production.
In summation, Continental states that it believes that because the
noncompliances are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety that no
corrective action is warranted.
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
[[Page 17831]]
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 am to 5 pm except Federal Holidays.
c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed
to 1-202-493-2251.
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 http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register was published on April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19477-78).
You may view documents submitted to a docket at the address and
times given above. You may also view the documents on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets available at that Web site.
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.
Dates: Comment closing date: May 7, 2010.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8).
Issued on: April 1, 2010.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2010-7870 Filed 4-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P