Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices 106737 

provider. FTA expects this to be rare 

and to not occur where there is a 

provider that will schedule trips over 

the phone. 

There may be some situations in 

which a public transit agency permits 

passengers to schedule trips with a 

choice of two or more ridesourcing 

companies as well as one or more 

taxicab companies in order to ensure the 

service is available for all passengers. In 

some cases, the taxicab company may be 

the only provider able to schedule trips 

over the phone or accept cash payment 

from passengers without a smart phone 

or credit card. As long as there is no 

contract or informal arrangement, the 

Drug and Alcohol rule does not apply to 

situations where there are multiple 

providers but only one provider that 

accepts phone reservations and/or 

accepts cash. While some passengers 

may have only one choice, this does not 

change the fact that many passengers 

will have more than one choice, so the 

Drug and Alcohol rule will not apply to 

these providers. 

May a transit agency develop an App for 

users to schedule rides with TNCs? 

A transit agency may develop an app 

for passenger convenience to schedule 

unsubsidized rides with the TNCs and 

taxicab companies in its area. Such an 

app does not constitute a contractual or 

informal arrangement for purposes of 

the drug and alcohol testing 

requirement. A shared app, on its own, 

without a link to a transit-agency 

subsidized TNC or taxicab trip, is not a 

safety-sensitive function. However, if 

the transit agency is subsidizing trips 

(e.g., with vouchers) scheduled with the 

app, the Drug and Alcohol rule applies 

unless there are two or more providers 

available with the same app, with no 

contractual or informal arrangement for 

the transportation service, and 

passengers can choose the provider for 

each trip. 

If my project is funded with Public 

Transportation Innovation (Section 

5312) research funds, does the drug and 

alcohol testing requirement apply? 

No. If the project is funded with 

research dollars, the law permits the 

Secretary to prescribe terms and 

conditions for the grant award. FTA has 

determined the Drug and Alcohol rule 

does not apply to these funds, even if 

the recipient of Public Transportation 

Innovation (Section 5312) research 

funds is also a recipient of Urbanized 

Area (Section 5307), Capital Investment 

Grant (Section 5309) or Rural Area 

(Section 5311) funds. 

Does the Drug and Alcohol rule apply 

to pilot programs that do not use any 

FTA funds? 

Yes. If a transit agency receiving FTA 

funds under 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5309, or 

5311 subsidizes ridesourcing services 

under a pilot program that does not use 

FTA funds, the transit agency must 

incorporate the ridesourcing company 

drivers into an FTA/DOT compliant 

drug and alcohol testing program, 

unless there are two or more providers, 

there is no contractual or informal 

arrangement for the transportation 

service, and passengers can choose the 

provider for each trip. Drivers may be 

included in a transit agency’s testing 

pool or a TNC’s or taxicab company’s 

testing pool, as long as the testing 

program complies with FTA’s drug and 

alcohol testing regulation. 

FTA seeks comment from all 

interested parties. After consideration of 

the comments, FTA will issue a second 

Federal Register notice with a final set 

of Frequently Asked Questions. 

Veronica Vanterpool, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30966 Filed 12–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Maritime Administration 

[Docket No. MARAD–2019–0093] 

Deepwater Port License Application: 

Texas GulfLink LLC (GulfLink)— 

Special Notice 

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Maritime Administration 

(MARAD) is providing notice to the 

public of the delay in issuing the Record 

of Decision for the proposed Texas 

GulfLink Deepwater Port, as the agency 

continues to process and consider 

public submissions on the proposed 

project. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Barton, Office of Deepwater Ports 

and Port Conveyance, MARAD, 

telephone: 202–366–4610, email: 

Deepwater.Ports@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 

section 5(k) of the Deepwater Port Act 

of 1974 (DWPA) (33 U.S.C. 1504(k)), 

MARAD is required to publish a written 

statement in the Federal Register 

regarding delays in the processing of 

applications for oil or natural gas 

terminals licensed under the DWPA. On 

May 30, 2019, MARAD and the U.S. 

Coast Guard (USCG) received a license 

application from GulfLink for all 

Federal authorizations required for a 

license to construct, own, and operate a 

deepwater port for the export of oil in 

the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of 

Brazoria County, TX. A Notice of 

Application summarizing and providing 

further information regarding the 

GulfLink Deepwater Port License 

application was published in the 

Federal Register on June 26, 2019 (84 

FR 30298). After extensive public and 

interagency review, a Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

was published on July 5, 2024, and the 

final public hearing was held on 

September 13, 2024. Over 44,000 public 

submissions on the FEIS and final 

public hearing were received in the TGL 

docket number MARAD–2019–0093 at 

Regulations.gov. MARAD is still 

reviewing and considering the 

comments received and issuance of a 

Record of Decision is therefore delayed. 

The applicable deadline for issuance of 

the Record of Decision is set forth in 

DWPA section 5(i)(1) (33 U.S.C. 

1504(i)(1)). This ongoing review will 

ensure that all substantive public 

comments are considered and that the 

information, data, and viewpoints 

received during this phase of the project 

review are fully assessed and evaluated 

before MARAD renders a final decision. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can 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.). For information on DOT’s 

compliance with the Privacy Act, visit 

www.transportation.gov/privacy. 

(Authority: DWPA, Pub. L. 93–627 (33 U.S.C. 

1501 et seq.); 49 CFR 1.93(h)) 

By Order of the Maritime Administrator. 

T. Mitchell Hudson, Jr., 

Secretary, Maritime Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30974 Filed 12–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2021–0035; Notice 2] 

Michelin North America, Inc., Grant of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
106738 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices 

ACTION: Grant of petition. 

SUMMARY: Michelin North America, Inc. 

(MNA), has determined that certain 

Michelin Primacy Tour A/S 

replacement passenger car tires do not 

fully comply with Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for 

Light Vehicles. MNA filed an original 

noncompliance report dated March 25, 

2021, and subsequently, MNA 

petitioned NHTSA on April 7, 2021, for 

a decision that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety. This 

notice announces the grant of MNA’s 

petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jayton Lindley, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

telephone (325) 655–0547, email 

Jayton.Lindley@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

MNA has determined that certain 

Michelin Primacy Tour A/S 

replacement passenger car tires do not 

fully comply with the requirements of 

paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 139, 

New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light 

Vehicles (49 CFR 571.139). MNA filed a 

noncompliance report dated March 25, 

2021, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 

Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. MNA 

subsequently petitioned NHTSA on 

April 7, 2021, for an exemption from the 

notification and remedy requirements of 

49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the basis that 

this noncompliance is inconsequential 

as it relates to motor vehicle safety, 

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

30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, 

Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or 

Noncompliance. 

Notice of receipt of MNA’s petition 

was published with a 30-day public 

comment period, on November 18, 

2021, in the Federal Register (86 FR 

64595). No comments were received. To 

view the petition and all supporting 

documents log onto the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) website at 

https://www.regulations.gov/. Then 

follow the online search instructions to 

locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2021– 

0035.’’ 

II. Tires Involved 

Approximately 1,196 Michelin 

Primacy Tour A/S replacement 

passenger car tires, size 235/65R18 

106H, manufactured between January 3, 

2021, and January 23, 2021, were 

identified by MNA as being potentially 

involved, however, MNA clarified that 

1,139 tires were captured and retained 

in MNA’s inventory. Any decision on 

this petition will only apply to the 

approximately 57 tires that MNA no 

longer controlled at the time it 

determined that the noncompliance 

existed. 

III. Noncompliance 

MNA explains that the 

noncompliance is due to a mold error in 

which the subject tires contain a tire 

identification number (TIN) with an 

inverted plant code and, therefore, do 

not comply with the requirements 

specified in paragraph S5.5.1(b) of 

FMVSS No. 139. 

IV. Rule Requirements 

Paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 

139 includes the requirements relevant 

to this petition. 

• For tires manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2009, each tire must be 

labeled with the tire identification 

number required by 49 CFR part 574 on 

the intended outboard sidewall of the 

tire. 

• Except for retreaded tires, if a tire 

does not have an intended outboard 

sidewall, the tire must be labeled with 

the tire identification number required 

by 49 CFR part 574 on one sidewall and 

with either the tire identification 

number or a partial tire identification 

number, containing all characters in the 

tire identification number except for the 

date code and, at the discretion of the 

manufacturer, any optional code, on the 

other sidewall. 

V. Summary of MNA’s Petition 

The following views and arguments 

presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary 

of MNA’s Petition,’’ are the views and 

arguments provided by MNA and do not 

reflect the views of the Agency. MNA 

describes the subject noncompliance 

and contends that the noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. 

In support of its petition, MNA 

submitted the following reasoning: 

1. The TIN marking noncompliance 

does not create any operational safety 

risk for the vehicle. The tires comply 

with applicable FMVSS and all other 

applicable regulations. 

2. The incorrect orientation of the TIN 

plant code has no bearing on tire 

performance. 

3. The subject tires are marked with 

all other markings required under 

FMVSS No. 139, such as S5.5(c) 

maximum permissible inflation pressure 

and S5.5(d) maximum load rating. The 

necessary information is available on 

the sidewall of the tire to ensure proper 

application and usage. 

4. The subject tires contain the DOT 

symbol on both sidewalls, thus, 

indicating conformance to applicable 

FMVSS. 

5. The plant code on the intended 

outboard side of the tires contain all the 

information required by 49 CFR 574.5 

for the TIN (plant code + size code + 

option code + date code), however the 

3-digit plant code is inverted. The text 

should read ‘‘DOT 1M3’’ and instead 

reads ‘‘DOT uWL.’’ 

6. The plant code orientation 

discrepancy only exists on the intended 

inboard sidewall of the tire. The 

intended inboard sidewall has the 

correct sequence of DOT + plant code + 

size code + option code + 

manufacturing date, with all characters 

oriented in the proper direction. 

7. For identification and traceability 

purposes the key information of plant 

code and manufacturing date is present 

on the tire. 

8. In the event that dealer/owner 

notifications are required, either the 

intended marking (DOT 1M3) or the 

actual marking (DOT inverted ‘‘1M3’’) 

would serve as an identifier of the tire. 

9. Upon identification of the 

mismarking, Michelin instituted a block 

on the affected tires and initiated a 

sorting of inventories. A total of 1,139 

of the 1,196 tires produced with the 

incorrect marking were captured and 

retained in Michelin inventory. 

10. The plant code plate in the 

affected mold has been restored to its 

correct orientation. 

11. The mismarking has been 

communicated to Michelin Customer 

Care representatives in order to 

effectively handle any inquiries from 

dealers or owners regarding the subject 

tires. 

12. MNA contends that NHTSA has 

concluded in other petitions related to 

similar TIN marking errors that this type 

of noncompliance is inconsequential to 

safety. Most notably, Cooper Tire & 

Rubber Company, 81 FR 43708 (July 5, 

2016) petitioned for tires produced with 

an inverted date code. MNA states that 

NHTSA concluded that the inverted 

marking did not affect the consumers’ 

ability to identify the tire and other 

examples exist where TIN information 

was incorrect, missing, or molded in the 

wrong sequence and NHTSA granted 

the petition. 

MNA concludes its petition by stating 

that the subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety and that its petition to be 

exempted from providing notification of 

the noncompliance, as required by 49 

U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices 106739 

1NHTSA requested that Michelin provide 

compliance test data for the subject tires while 

processing this request. Michelin provided this data 

but requested confidential treatment under 49 CFR 

part 512. This is reflected in a memo placed in the 

docket. 

2See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 

35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding noncompliance had 

no effect on occupant safety because it had no effect 

on the proper operation of the occupant 

classification system and the correct deployment of 

an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods. Inc.; Grant of 

Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) 

(finding occupant using noncompliant light source 

would not be exposed to significantly greater risk 

than occupant using similar compliant light 

source). 

3See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of 

Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 

2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 

565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect 

poses an unreasonable risk when it ‘‘results in 

hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine 

fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some 

such hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be 

expected to occur in the future’’). 

noncompliance, as required by 49 

U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.1

VII. NHTSA’s Analysis: In 

determining inconsequentiality of a 

noncompliance, NHTSA focuses on the 

safety risk to individuals who 

experience the type of event against 

which a recall would otherwise 

protect.2 In general, NHTSA does not 

consider the absence of complaints or 

injuries when determining if a 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

safety. The absence of complaints does 

not mean vehicle occupants have not 

experienced a safety issue, nor does it 

mean that there will not be safety issues 

in the future.3 Further, because each 

inconsequential noncompliance petition 

must be evaluated on its own facts and 

determinations are highly factdependent, NHTSA does not consider 

prior determinations as binding 

precedent. Petitioners are reminded that 

they have the burden of persuading 

NHTSA that the noncompliance is 

inconsequential to safety. 

NHTSA has evaluated the merits of 

the petition submitted by MNA and is 

granting MNA’s request for relief from 

notification and remedy based on the 

following: 

1. Based on its review of the 

information MNA submitted, NHTSA 

has no basis to believe that tires do not 

meet the performance and labeling 

requirements of FMVSS 139, with the 

exception of the inverted plant code. 

2. NHTSA believes that manufacturers 

and consumers will be able to identify 

the affected tires in the event of a recall 

for the following reasons: 

a. The oval surrounding the plant 

code portion of the TIN visually groups 

the 3 characters from the rest of the TIN. 

This helps the reader to understand that 

the mold plate for the plant code 

portion of the TIN was put in place 

inverted. 

b. The font style is such that it is 

evident that the characters are inverted, 

however the inverted plant code could 

possibly be read as ‘‘EWI,’’ ‘‘EWL,’’ or 

‘‘EW1.’’ None of these are currently 

assigned to an active tire plant 

registered with NHTSA, and EWI in 

particular would not be assigned 

because ‘‘I’’ is not a permitted symbol. 

c. The inboard sidewall of the tire has 

the plant code molded in the correct 

orientation. 

3. NHTSA believes that the 

manufacturer has taken sufficient steps 

to ensure that the affected tires are 

included in any future recalls by: 

a. Ensuring that the affected tires may 

be registered with either the correct TIN 

or any of the possible interpretations of 

the inverted characters. 

b. Ensuring that any future safetyrelated recalls for the affected tires will 

include TIN numbers with all the 

possible interpretations of the inverted 

characters. 

c. Coordinating with customer care 

representatives to handle inquiries 

related to the inverted plant code 

characters. 

VII. NHTSA’s Decision: In 

consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA 

finds that MNA has met its burden of 

persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 

139 noncompliance in the affected tires 

is inconsequential to motor vehicle 

safety. Accordingly, MNA’s petition is 

hereby granted, and MNA is 

consequently exempted from the 

obligation of providing notification of, 

and a free remedy for, that 

noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 

and 30120. 

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 subject tires 

that MNA no longer controlled at the 

time it determined that the 

noncompliance existed. However, the 

granting of this petition does not relieve 

tire 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 MNA notified them that the 

subject noncompliance existed. 

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

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 

501.8) 

Eileen Sullivan, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30950 Filed 12–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2021–0096; Notice 3] 

Hercules Tire & Rubber Company, 

Grant of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition. 

SUMMARY: Hercules Tire & Rubber 

Company, (Hercules), has determined 

that certain Hercules Power ST2 radial 

trailer tires do not fully comply with 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires 

for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of 

More Than 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 

Pounds), Specialty Tires, and Tires for 

Motorcycles. Hercules filed an original 

noncompliance report dated December 

9, 2021, and amended the report on 

December 14, 2021, and March 9, 2022. 

Hercules petitioned NHTSA on 

December 16, 2021, and amended the 

petition on March 9, 2022, for a decision 

that the subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. This document 

announces the grant of Hercules’s 

petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jayton Lindley, General Engineer, 

NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, (325) 655–0547. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview: Hercules determined that 

certain Hercules Power ST2 radial 

trailer tires do not fully comply with the 

requirements of paragraph S6.5(b) of 

FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires 

for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of 

More Than 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 

Pounds), Specialty Tires, and Tires for 

Motorcycles (49 CFR 571.119). 

Hercules filed an original 

noncompliance report dated December 

9, 2021, and amended the report on 

December 14, 2021, and March 9, 2022, 

pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports. Hercules petitioned NHTSA on 

December 16, 2021, and amended its 

petition on March 9, 2022, for an 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1