70914 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Notices 

appropriate Federal, State, and local 

agencies, and to private organizations 

and citizens who have expressed 

interest in this project. A series of 

public meetings will be held in the City 

of Miami, Miami-Dade County between 

July 2005 and January 2007. In addition, 

a public hearing will be held. Public 

notice will be given of the time and 

place of the meetings and hearing. The 

Draft EIS will be made available for 

public and agency review and comment. 

A formal scoping meeting is planned 

for the project, and the date and location 

will be established later. 

To ensure that the full range of issues 

related to the proposed action is 

addressed and all significant issues 

identified, comments and suggestions 

are invited from all interested parties. 

Comments or questions concerning this 

proposed action and the EIS should be 

directed to the FHWA at the address 

provided above. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Number 20.205, Highway Research, 

Planning and Construction. The regulations 

implementing Executive Order 12372 

regarding inter-governmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities apply to this 

program) 

Issued on: November 16, 2005. 

George B. Hadley, 

Environmental Programs Coordinator, 

Tallahassee, Florida. 

[FR Doc. 05–23150 Filed 11–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–22970; Notice 1] 

Les Entreprises Michel Corbeil Inc., 

Receipt of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

Les Entreprises Michel Corbeil Inc. 

(Corbeil) has determined that certain 

school buses that it produced in 2004 do 

not comply with S5.1 of 49 CFR 

571.221, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 221, ‘‘School bus 

body joint strength.’’ Corbeil has filed 

an appropriate report pursuant to 49 

CFR Part 573, ‘‘Defect and 

Noncompliance Reports.’’

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

30120(h), Corbeil 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 Corbeil’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 a total of approximately 

295 school buses produced between 

May 3, 2004 and June 4, 2004. S5.1 of 

FMVSS No. 221 requires that, 

* * * each body panel joint * * * when 

tested in accordance with the procedure of 

S6, shall hold the body panel to the member 

to which it is joined when subjected to a 

force of 60 percent of the tensile strength of 

the weakest joined body panel determined 

pursuant to S6.2. 

The longitudinal roof joint on some of 

the subject school buses fails when 

tested according to the requirements of 

S5.1. 

Corbeil believes that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety and that no 

corrective action is warranted. Corbeil 

states that during the period of 

production of the subject school buses, 

‘‘the production used expired glue.’’

Corbeil estimates that 61 of the 295 

buses could be affected, based on the 

number of expired glue cartridges that 

were used. 

Corbeil further states, 

* * * repairs could affect the structural 

integrity of these buses’ roofs. If we proceed 

with repairs, we must remove the actual MS 

polymer strips on the roof to reach the joints. 

This operation requires us to preheat (300–

600 °F) the MS polymer strip (will soften the 

MS polymer) but at the same time will cause 

a significant urethane chemical modification 

and will affect the actual joint strength. The 

roof joint is composed of urethane glue and 

this glue will be affected if the temperature 

is higher than 194 °F * * * If our educated 

estimate is that only 61 buses on (sic) the 295 

buses involved in this recall are affected, 

however they cannot be individually 

identified. Also, during the test, the 

transverse joint succeeded at 116% of the 

requirement and the longitudinal joint failed 

only by 9% with 91% of the requirement. 

The objective of this recall is to increase the 

strength of the joint. We presently suspect 

that a retrofit could affect/damage the roof 

rather to (sic) reinforce the joint. 

Corbeil states that no accidents or 

injuries have occurred as a result of this 

noncompliance. 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments on the petition described 

above. 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. Mail: Docket Management 

Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Nassif Building, Room 

PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC, 20590–0001. Hand 

Delivery: Room PL–401 on the plaza 

level of the Nassif Building, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. It 

is requested, but not required, that two 

copies of the comments be provided. 

The Docket Section is open on 

weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except 

Federal Holidays. Comments may be 

submitted electronically by logging onto 

the Docket Management System Web 

site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on 

‘‘Help’’ to obtain instructions for filing 

the document electronically. Comments 

may be faxed to 1–202–493–2251, or 

may be submitted to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

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: December 23, 

2005. 

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

delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 

501.8. 

Issued on: November 17, 2005. 

Daniel C. Smith, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 05–23138 Filed 11–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2005–22554; Notice 2] 

Michelin North America, Inc., Grant of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

Michelin North America, Inc. 

(Michelin) has determined that certain 

tires it produced in 2005 do not comply 

with S4.3(d) and S4.3(e) of 49 CFR 

571.109, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 109, ‘‘New 

pneumatic tires.’’ Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

30118(d) and 30120(h), Michelin has 

petitioned for a determination that this 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety and has filed an 

appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR 

part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance 

Reports.’’ Notice of receipt of a petition 

was published, with a 30-day comment 

period, on October 3, 2005 in the 

Federal Register (70 FR 57645). NHTSA 

received no comments. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Notices 70915 

1This decision is limited to its specific facts. As 

some commenters on the ANPRM noted, the 

existence of steel in a tire’s sidewall can be relevant 

to the manner in which it should be repaired or 

retreaded. 

Michelin produced approximately 

9,816 BFGoodrich Radial T/A tires 

during the period from February 20, 

2005 through April 7, 2005 that do not 

comply with FMVSS No. 109, S4.3(d) 

and S4.3(e). S4.3 of FMVSS No. 109 

requires that ‘‘each tire shall have 

permanently molded into or onto both 

sidewalls * * * (d) The generic name of 

each cord material used in the plies 

* * * of the tire’’ and ‘‘(e) Actual 

number of plies in the sidewall, and the 

actual number of plies in the tread area 

if different.’’ The noncompliant tires 

were marked ‘‘tread plies 2 polyester + 

2 steel; sidewall plies 2 polyester + 1 

nylon.’’ The correct marking should 

read ‘‘tread plies 2 polyester + 2 steel + 

1 nylon; sidewall plies 2 polyester.’’

Michelin believes that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety and that no 

corrective action is warranted. Michelin 

stated that NHTSA has consistently 

found that ply labeling noncompliances 

are inconsequential to motor vehicle 

safety and has consistently granted 

inconsequential noncompliance 

petitions on that basis. Michelin also 

stated that all load and inflation 

pressure markings are present and the 

noncompliant tires meet or exceed all of 

the FMVSS No. 109 minimum 

performance requirements. 

The Transportation Recall, 

Enhancement, Accountability, and 

Documentation (TREAD) Act (Public 

Law 106–414) required, among other 

things, that the agency initiate 

rulemaking to improve tire label 

information. In response, the agency 

published an Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the 

Federal Register on December 1, 2000 

(65 FR 75222). 

The agency received more than 20 

comments on the tire labeling 

information required by 49 CFR 571.109 

and 119, part 567, part 574, and part 

575. In addition, the agency conducted 

a series of focus groups, as required by 

the TREAD Act, to examine consumer 

perceptions and understanding of tire 

labeling. Few of the focus group 

participants had knowledge of tire 

labeling beyond the tire brand name, 

tire size, and tire pressure. 

Based on the information obtained 

from comments to the ANPRM and the 

consumer focus groups, we have 

concluded that it is likely that few 

consumers have been influenced by the 

tire construction information (number of 

plies and cord material in the sidewall 

and tread plies) provided on the tire 

label when deciding to buy a motor 

vehicle or tire. 

Therefore, the agency agrees with 

Michelin’s statement that the incorrect 

markings in this case do not present a 

serious safety concern.1 There is no 

effect of the noncompliance on the 

operational safety of vehicles on which 

these tires are mounted. In the agency’s 

judgment, the incorrect labeling of the 

tire construction information will have 

an inconsequential effect on motor 

vehicle safety. In addition, the tires are 

certified to meet all the performance 

requirements of FMVSS No. 109 and all 

other informational markings as 

required by FMVSS No. 109 are present. 

Michelin has corrected the problem. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA has decided that the petitioner 

has met its burden of persuasion that 

the noncompliance described is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

Accordingly, Michelin’s petition is 

granted and the petitioner is exempted 

from the obligation of providing 

notification of, and a remedy for, the 

noncompliance. 

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

delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 

501.8. 

Issued on: November 17, 2005. 

Daniel C. Smith, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 05–23137 Filed 11–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–22971; Notice 1] 

Weekend Warrior Trailers, Inc., Receipt 

of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

Weekend Warrior Trailers, Inc. 

(Weekend Warrior) has determined that 

certain ramp-equipped travel trailers 

that it produced in 2001 through 2005 

do not comply with 49 CFR 571.108, 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 108, ‘‘Lamps, reflective 

devices, and associated equipment.’’

Weekend Warrior has filed an 

appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR 

part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance 

Reports.’’

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

30120(h), Weekend Warrior 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 Weekend 

Warrior’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 a total of approximately 

13,447 ramp-equipped travel trailers 

produced between January 2001 and 

September 2005. FMVSS No. 108 

requires that these vehicles be equipped 

with amber intermediate side marker 

lamps and reflex reflectors, and red 

identification lamps. However, the 

subject vehicles are not equipped with 

these devices. 

Weekend Warrior believes that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety and that no 

corrective action is warranted. Weekend 

Warrior states that the noncompliance 

has caused no safety related accidents or 

injuries, and that it has received no 

customer complaints or notification of 

injuries or deaths related to the absence 

of the required items. 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments on the petition described 

above. 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. Mail: Docket Management 

Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Nassif Building, Room 

PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 0590–0001. Hand 

Delivery: Room PL–401 on the plaza 

level of the Nassif Building, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. It 

is requested, but not required, that two 

copies of the comments be provided. 

The Docket Section is open on 

weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except 

Federal Holidays. Comments may be 

submitted electronically by logging onto 

the Docket Management System Web 

site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on 

‘‘Help’’ to obtain instructions for filing 

the document electronically. Comments 

may be faxed to 1–202–493–2251, or 

may be submitted to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

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.