11174 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 49 / Monday, March 16, 2009 / Notices 

Visalia/Hanford/Tulare area will also be 

evaluated in this Project EIR/EIS. 

Probable Effects: The purpose of the 

EIR/EIS process is to explore in a public 

setting the effects of the proposed 

project on the physical, human, and 

natural environment. The FRA and the 

Authority will continue the tiered 

evaluation of all significant 

environmental, social, and economic 

impacts of the construction and 

operation of the HST system. Impact 

areas to be addressed include 

transportation impacts; safety and 

security; land use and zoning; land 

acquisition, displacements, and 

relocations; agricultural land impacts; 

cumulative and secondary impacts; 

cultural resource impacts, including 

impacts on historical and archaeological 

resources and parklands/recreation 

areas; neighborhood compatibility and 

environmental justice; and natural 

resource impacts including air quality, 

wetlands, water resources, noise, 

vibration, energy, wildlife and 

ecosystems, including endangered 

species. Measures to avoid, minimize, 

and mitigate adverse impacts will be 

identified and evaluated. 

The Merced to Bakersfield HST 

Project EIR/EIS will be prepared in 

accordance with FRA’s Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts (64 

FR 28545 [May 26, 1999]) and will 

address not only NEPA and CEQA but 

will also address as necessary other 

applicable statutes, regulations, and 

executive orders, including the Clean 

Air Act, Section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act, Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, Section 4(f) of 

the Department of Transportation Act, 

the Endangered Species Act, and 

Executive Order 12898 on 

Environmental Justice. 

This EIR/EIS process will also 

continue the NEPA/Clean Water Act 

Section 404 integration process 

established through the Statewide 

Program EIR/EIS process. The EIR/EIS 

will evaluate project alignment 

alternatives, and station and 

maintenance facility locations to 

support a determination of the Least 

Environmentally Damaging Practicable 

Alternative (‘‘LEDPA’’) by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. 

Scoping and Comments: FRA 

encourages broad participation in the 

EIS process during scoping and review 

of the resulting environmental 

documents. Comments are invited from 

all interested agencies and the public to 

ensure the full range of issues related to 

the proposed action and reasonable 

alternatives are addressed and all 

significant issues are identified. In 

particular, FRA is interested in 

determining whether there are areas of 

environmental concern where there 

might be a potential for significant sitespecific impacts. Public agencies with 

jurisdiction are requested to advise FRA 

and the Authority of the applicable 

permit and environmental review 

requirements of each agency, and the 

scope and content of the environmental 

information that is germane to the 

agency’s statutory responsibilities in 

connection with the proposed project. 

Public agencies are requested to advise 

FRA if they anticipate taking a major 

action in connection with the proposed 

project and if they wish to cooperate in 

the preparation of the Project EIR/EIS. 

Public scoping meetings have been 

scheduled as an important component 

of the scoping process for both the State 

and Federal environmental review. The 

scoping meetings described in this 

Notice will also be the subject of 

additional public notification. 

FRA is seeking participation and 

input of all interested Federal, State, 

and local agencies, Native American 

groups, and other concerned private 

organizations or individuals on the 

scope of the EIR/EIS. Implementation of 

the Merced to Bakersfield section of the 

HST system is a Federal undertaking 

with the potential to affect historic 

properties. As such, it is subject to the 

requirements of section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966 (16 U.S.C. 470f). In accordance 

with regulations issued by the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, 36 

CFR part 800, FRA intends to coordinate 

compliance with section 106 of this Act 

with the preparation of the EIR/EIS, 

beginning with the identification of 

consulting parties through the scoping 

process, in a manner consistent with the 

standards set out in 36 CFR 800.8. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 9, 

2009. 

Ray LaHood, 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation. 

[FR Doc. E9–5579 Filed 3–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0118; Notice 2] 

Continental Tire North America, Inc., 

Grant of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

Continental Tire North America, Inc. 

(Continental), has determined that 

certain passenger car tires manufactured 

during December of 2007 and January of 

2008 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. 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) and the rule implementing 

those provisions 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. Notice of receipt of 

the petition was published, with a 30- 

day public comment period, on June 26, 

2008 in the Federal Register (73 FR 

36371). 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–2008–0118.’’ 

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 1,925 size 

255/60R17 106 H Continental 

CrossContact LX ETRTO passenger car 

tires manufactured in Continental’s 

Mount Vernon, Illinois plant during 

December of 2007 and January of 2008. 

Paragraph S5.5(e) 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 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; * * *. 

Continental explains that the 

noncompliance is that the sidewall 

marking incorrectly identifies the 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 49 / Monday, March 16, 2009 / Notices 11175 

generic material of the plies in the body 

of the tire as rayon when they are in fact 

polyester. Specifically, the tires in 

question were inadvertently 

manufactured with ‘‘TREAD 6 PLIES 2 

RAYON + 2 STEEL + 2 NYLON 

SIDEWALL 2 PLIES 2 RAYON’’ marked 

on the sidewall. The labeling should 

have been ‘‘TREAD 6 PLIES 2 

POLYESTER + 2 STEEL + 2 NYLON 

SIDEWALL 2 PLIES 2 POLYESTER.’’ 

Continental states that it discovered 

the mold labeling error that caused the 

non-compliance during a routine quality 

audit. 

Continental makes the argument that 

this noncompliance is inconsequential 

to motor vehicle safety because the 

noncompliant sidewall marking does 

not affect the safety, performance and 

durability of the tire and that the tires 

were built as designed and all other 

sidewall identification markings and 

safety information are correct. 

Continental further states that it 

performs ongoing compliance testing to 

assure tire performance, and that all of 

the subject tires will meet or exceed the 

performance requirements of FMVSS 

No. 139. Continental also states its belief 

that there will be no operational impact 

on the performance or safety of vehicles 

on which these tires are mounted. 

Continental also points out that 

NHTSA has previously granted petitions 

for sidewall marking noncompliances 

that it believes are similar to the instant 

noncompliance. 

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. 

NHTSA Decision 

The agency agrees with Continental 

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 Continental 

has met its burden of persuasion that 

the subject FMVSS No. 139 labeling 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, 

Continental’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: March 10, 2009. 

Daniel C. Smith, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E9–5638 Filed 3–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety: 

Notice of Application for Special 

Permits 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: List of Applications for Special 

Permits. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

procedures governing the application 

for, and the processing of, special 

permits from the Department of 

Transportation’s Hazardous Material 

Regulations (49 CFR Part 107, Subpart 

B), notice is hereby given that the Office 

of Hazardous Materials Safety has 

received the application described 

herein. Each mode of transportation for 

which a particular special permit is 

requested is indicated by a number in 

the ‘‘Nature of Application’’ portion of 

the table below as follows: 1—Motor 

vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 

4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passengercarrying aircraft. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 15, 2009. 

Address Comments To: Record 

Center, Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

Comments should refer to the 

application number and be submitted in 

triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of 

comments is desired, include a selfaddressed stamped postcard showing 

the special permit number. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Copies of the applications are available 

for inspection in the Records Center, 

East Building, PHH–30, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, Southeast, Washington 

DC or at http://dms.dot.gov. 

This notice of receipt of applications 

for special permit is published in 

accordance with Part 107 of the Federal 

hazardous materials transportation law 

(49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 06, 

2009. 

Delmer F. Billings, 

Director, Office of Materials Hazardous, 

Special Permits and Approvals.