Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2012 / Notices 2775 

1 Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (Goodyear) 

is a replacement equipment manufacturer 

incorporated in the state of Ohio. 

New Jersey Ave. SE., W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590. The Docket 

Operations Facility is open from 9 a.m. 

to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal Holidays. 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in these proceedings by 

submitting written views, data, or 

comments. FRA does not anticipate 

scheduling a public hearing in 

connection with these proceedings since 

the facts do not appear to warrant a 

hearing. If any interested party desires 

an opportunity for oral comment, they 

should notify FRA, in writing, before 

the end of the comment period and 

specify the basis for their request. 

All communications concerning these 

proceedings should identify the 

appropriate docket number and may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Web site: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Operations Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal Holidays. 

Communications received by March 

5, 2012 will be considered by FRA 

before final action is taken. Comments 

received after that date will be 

considered as far as practicable. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of any written 

communications and 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.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78), or 

online at http://www.dot.gov/ 

privacy.html. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 12, 

2012. 

Ron Hynes, 

Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for 

Regulatory and Legislative Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1003 Filed 1–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2011–0033; Notice 2] 

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 

Grant of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Petition Grant. 

SUMMARY: Goodyear Tire and Rubber 

Company,(Goodyear),1 has determined 

that approximately 26,224 Goodyear 

Assurance ComforTred Touring 

passenger replacement car tires 

manufactured between January 4, 2010 

and September 11, 2010, did not fully 

comply with paragraph S5.5(e) of 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic 

Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. 

Goodyear has filed an appropriate report 

pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports (dated December 16, 2010). 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h) and the rule implementing 

those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, 

Goodyear 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 Goodyear’s 

petition was published with a 30-day 

public comment period, on March 18, 

2011, in the Federal Register (76 FR 

15045). No comments were received. To 

view the petition and all supporting 

documents log onto the Federal Docket 

Management System Web site at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/. Then 

follow the online search instructions to 

locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2011– 

0033.’’ 

Contact Information: 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. 

Summary of Goodyear’s Petition: 

Affected are approximately 26,224 

Goodyear Assurance ComforTred 

Touring passenger car replacement tires, 

size 215/70R15 that were manufactured 

between January 4, 2010 and September 

11, 2010. 

Goodyear explains that the 

noncompliance is that, due to a mold 

labeling error, the sidewall marking on 

the tires incorrectly describes the 

generic name of the cord material in the 

tread area of the tires as required by 

paragraph S5.5(e). Specifically, the tires 

in question were inadvertently 

manufactured with ‘‘Tread: 1 Polyester 

Cord + 2 Steel Cords + 1 Polyester Cord. 

The labeling should have been ‘‘Tread: 

1 Polyester Cord + 2 Steel Cords + 1 

Nylon Cord.’’ 

Goodyear argues that this 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety because while the 

non-compliant tires are mislabeled they 

meet or exceed all applicable Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, the 

noncompliant sidewall marking does 

not create an unsafe condition, and all 

other labeling requirements have been 

met. 

Goodyear points out that NHTSA has 

previously granted similar petitions for 

non-compliances in sidewall marking. 

Goodyear additionally states that it 

has corrected the affected tire molds and 

all future production will have the 

correct material shown on the sidewall. 

In summation, Goodyear 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 

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, and should be granted. 

NHTSA Decision: The agency agrees 

with Goodyear 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. 

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 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

2776 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2012 / Notices 

2 Goodyear’s petition, which was filed under 49 

CFR part 556, requests an agency decision to 

exempt Goodyear as a replacement equipment 

manufacturer from the notification and recall 

responsibilities of 49 CFR part 573 for 26,224 of the 

affected tires. However, a decision on this petition 

cannot relieve Goodyear distributors 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 Goodyear recognized that 

the subject noncompliance existed. 

1 Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc., a division of Dorel 

Industries, Inc., is an Indiana company that 

manufactures and imports motor vehicle 

equipment. 

2 DJG’s petition, which was filed under 49 CFR 

part 556, requests an agency decision to exempt DJG 

as an equipment manufacturer from the notification 

and recall responsibilities of 49 CFR part 573 for 

89,527 of the affected child restraint systems. 

However, a decision on this petition cannot relieve 

child restraint system distributors and dealers of the 

prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, introduction 

or delivery for introduction into interstate 

commerce of the noncompliant child restraint 

systems under their control after DJG notified them 

that the subject noncompliance existed. 

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 

26,224 2 tires that have already passed 

from the manufacturer to an owner, 

purchaser, or dealer. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 

Delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 

501.8. 

Issued on: January 12, 2012. 

Claude H. Harris, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2012–933 Filed 1–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0002; Notice 1] 

Dorel Juvenile Group, Receipt of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Receipt of Petition. 

SUMMARY: Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc.1

(DJG) has determined that certain child 

restraint systems manufactured between 

July 20, 2010 and May 18, 2011 do not 

fully comply with paragraph S5.5 

Labeling of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 213,Child 

Restraint Systems. DJG has filed an 

appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR 

part 573, Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports (dated June 

23, 2011). 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 

CFR part 556), DJG 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 DJG’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 89,527 of 

the following models of DJG child 

restraint systems that were 

manufactured between July 20, 2010 

and May 18, 2011: 

22187ANL Alpha Omega Elite 

22187REM Alpha Omega Elite 

22187REMA Alpha Omega Elite 

22187SAR Alpha Omega Elite 

22187SARA Alpha Omega Elite 

22465 FSM Alpha Omega Elite 

22790CGT Deluxe 3 in 1 

CC033BMT Alpha Omega Elite 

CC043ANK Alpha Omega Elite 

CC043ANL Alpha Omega Elite 

CC043AQS Alpha Omega Elite 

CC046AAI Deluxe 3 in 1 

CC046AAU Deluxe 3 in 1 

CC046CTA Deluxe 3 in 1 

CC046SNW Deluxe 3 in 1 

CC046WPR Deluxe 3 in 1 

CC050AJH Complete Air LX 

CC050ANY Complete Air LX 

CC050ANZ Complete Air LX 

CC050AOQ Complete Air LX 

CC051AIR Complete Air SE 

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 

89,527 2 child restraint systems that DJG 

no longer controlled at the time it 

determined that the noncompliance 

existed. 

DJG described the noncompliance as 

follows: 

The child restraints at issue utilize a 

permanently attached base which are 

equipped with color coordinated Ease of Use 

labels including base labels depicting the 

rear-facing mode instructions. The issue is 

that certain restraints were equipped with 

base labels positioned on the incorrect side 

of the base. Even if the base labels are 

positioned on the incorrect side of the base, 

nearly all the information is correct, except 

the small indicator arrows do not line up 

with the rear-facing vehicle and LATCH belt 

path for the rear-facing mode. As noted in the 

Noncompliance Information Report, this 

voluntarily supplied information caused the 

installation diagram required by FMVSS 213 

S5.5.2(l) to be inaccurate. 

The noncompliance exists when the base 

labels are installed incorrectly and the 

indicator arrows do not point to the 

rear-facing vehicle belt/LATCH routing path. 

The arrows are actually pointing to the area 

below the forward-facing vehicle belt/LATCH 

path routing but could be construed as 

pointing to the forward-facing routing path. 

DJG stated its belief that the 

likelihood a consumer would interpret 

the arrows as indicating the proper 

rear-facing path routing through the 

forward-facing path routing is extremely 

low. The proper rear-facing vehicle belt/ 

LATCH routing path is shown very 

clearly in the five diagrams on the two 

base labels. 

DJG argued that instructions included 

with the subject child restraint systems 

also correctly depict the rear-facing 

vehicle belt/LATCH routing path 

numerous times. 

DJG noted that only one user 

complaint related to this issue had been 

received. 

DJG also included the results of a 

survey conducted to illustrate any 

effects the noncompliance may have on 

seat installation. 

In conclusion, DJG stated its belief 

that the technical noncompliance issue 

reported in the June 23, 2011 

Noncompliance Information Report 

does not constitute a true safety related 

issue because there is no evidence that 

improper installation is actually taking 

place in the field (as evidenced by the 

lack of significant complaints from 

consumers, advocates, health care 

specialists or anyone else). DJG also 

stated that the preponderance of correct 

rear-facing installation diagrams and 

instructions appears to outweigh the 

potential for improper installation as a 

result of the ambiguous arrows on the 

rear-facing installation labels on the 

base. DJG also indicated that there 

appears to be a very low probability that 

improper installation is even possible in 

the vast majority of vehicles surveyed, 

which represent a good cross section of 

vehicles in the field. 

Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES