32896 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Notices

them as BLEMs or seconds at a reduced

price, but at least the tires would have

the correct maximum inflation pressure

of 35 psi, if not the correct maximum

inflation pressure of 241, actually

241.32, kPa.

Discussion

Michelin has admitted manufacturing

and not being able to locate

approximately 247 P185/75R14x Radial

BW tires that have incorrect maximum

inflation pressure information in

pounds per square inch labeled on both

tire sidewalls. The actual mark on these

tires is ‘‘240 kPa(33psi)MAX.PRESS,’’

and the required mark is ‘‘240

kPa(35psi)MAX.PRESS.’’ Michelin cites

the availability of several publications

which instruct users of the correct

maximum inflation pressure to be used

in tires. Michelin’s inconsequentiality

application does not address the

potential safety hazard which could be

caused by the reported noncompliance.

Instead, Michelin argues that the

noncompliance in labeling is minor

because the maximum inflation pressure

is correctly marked in kPa on the tire

sidewall.

The potential safety hazard is

overloading the vehicle on which the

tires are installed. To determine

whether there might be a potential

overloading problem, the agency

referred to The 1995 Tire and Rim

Association Yearbook. The tire load

limits at (240kPa/35psi) and (240kPa/

33psi) are very close, the difference

being approximately 55 lbs. (See Table

I.)

Table I—1995—The Tire and Rim

Association, Inc.

Tire Size Designation—P185/75*14

Tire Load Limits at Various Cold Inflation

Pressures Standard Load

kPa—220 to 240

psi—32 to 35

Kg—560 to 585

lbs.—1,235 to 1,290

NHTSA is not convinced that the

chart indicates that tire overloading is

likely to occur should customers and

tire mounters adhere to the

noncompliant tire label. The agency’s

belief is based on the assumption that

the tires will most likely be used on

passenger vehicles and that most

passenger vehicles are not loaded to

their maximum load weight. Usually

these vehicles carry an average of two

passengers and this would not create an

overloaded condition. Also, the average

tire owner is not likely to inflate tires on

a vehicle to the recommended

maximum inflation pressure that

appears on the tire. Finally, the number

of noncompliant tires is very small, only

247, which reduces the import of the

noncompliance.

Accordingly, for the reasons

expressed above, the petitioner has met

its burden of persuasion that the

noncompliance herein described is

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety,

and the agency grants Michelin’s

application for exemption from

notification of the noncompliance as

required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and from

remedy as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on: June 19, 1996.

Patricia Breslin,

Acting Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 96–16185 Filed 6–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

[Docket No. 96–068; Notice 1]

Michelin North America, Inc.; Receipt

of Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

Michelin North America, Inc.

(Michelin) of Greenville, South

Carolina, has determined that some of

its tires fail to comply with the labeling

requirements of 49 CFR 571.109,

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

(FMVSS) No. 109, ‘‘New Pneumatic

Tires,’’ and has filed an appropriate

report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573,

‘‘Defect and Noncompliance Reports.’’

Michelin has also applied to be

exempted from the notification and

remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.

Chapter 301—‘‘Motor Vehicle Safety’’

on the basis that the noncompliance is

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

This notice of receipt of an

application 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 application.

In FMVSS No. 109, Paragraph S4.3(a)

requires tires to be labeled with one size

designation, except that equivalent inch

and metric size designations may be

used.

Michelin’s description of noncompliance follows:

‘‘During the period of the 25th week

through the 45th week of 1995, the Ardmore,

Oklahoma, plant of Uniroyal Goodrich Tire

Manufacturing, a division of Michelin North

America, Inc., produced tires with two size

designations specified on one sidewall of the

tire. Specifically, in the upper sidewall of the

tire, in letters 0.44 inches high, the tire was

correctly marked as a 205/70R15. The tire

was incorrectly marked in the lower sidewall

area, in letters 0.25 inches high, as a 205/

75R15. This incorrect marking occurred on

the side opposite the DOT tire identification

number. The correct marking also appears in

two places on the side that contains the DOT

tire identification number. The markings

specified by 49 CFR 571.109 S4.3(a) call for

only one size designation. All performance

requirements of FMVSS #109 are met or

exceeded for these tires.

‘‘Approximately 4,708 205/70R15 BF

Goodrich Touring T/A SR4 tires were

produced with the aforementioned

information on one sidewall of the tire. Of

this total, as many as 730 were shipped to the

replacement market. The remaining tires

have been isolated in [Michelin’s]

warehouses and will be brought into full

compliance with the marking requirements of

FMVSS No. 109 or scrapped.’’

Michelin supported its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

‘‘1. All tires have a paper label, showing

the correct size, applied to the tire tread.

Tires are generally ‘pulled from the rack’

based on the paper label. Thus information

on the correct tire size for the application

would be available.

‘‘2. The tire size is incorrect, in one of four

places, only with respect to the aspect ratio

(or series), that is 75. Both the section width

designation of 205 and the rim diameter code

of 15 are correct. The correct maximum load

and inflation pressure for the 205/70R15 is

molded on both sides of the tire.

‘‘3. The tire size is correctly stamped on

both sides in letters 0.44 inch high. Thus

attention should be more readily drawn to

the correct tire size than to the incorrect size

which is in much smaller letters.

‘‘4. When these tires are mounted on the

vehicle, the ‘clean’ side (i.e. the side without

the bar code lines) is mounted out. Thus

when mounting these tires on a vehicle, the

proper size designation is readily apparent in

two places on the sidewall.’’

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments on the application of

Michelin, described above. Comments

should refer to the docket number and

be submitted to: Docket Section,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, Room 5109, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C.,

20590. It is requested but not required

that six copies be submitted.

All comments received before the

close of business on the closing date

indicated below will be considered. The

application and supporting materials,

and all comments received after the

closing date, will also be filed and will

be considered to the extent possible.

When the application is granted or

denied, the notice will be published in

the Federal Register pursuant to the

authority indicated below. Comment

closing date: July 25, 1996.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegation of

authority at 49 CFR 501.8)
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Notices 32897

Issued on: June 19, 1996.

Patricia Breslin,

Acting Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 96–16186 Filed 6–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

Surface Transportation Board

Sunshine Act Meeting

BOARD CONFERENCE

TIME AND DATES: 10:00 a.m., July 3, 1996.

PLACE: Hearing Room A, Surface

Transportation Board, 1201 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20423.

STATUS: The Board will meet to discuss

among themselves the following agenda

items. Although the conference is open

for the public observation, no public

participation is permitted.

MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Finance Docket No. 32760, Union Pacific

Corporation, Union Pacific Railroad

Company, and Missouri Pacific Railroad

Company—Control and Merger—Southern

Pacific Rail Corporation, Southern Pacific

Transportation Company, St. Louis

Southwestern Railway Company, SPCSL

Corp., and The Denver and Rio Grande

Western Railroad Company

This notice covers both the Finance Docket

No. 32760 lead proceeding and the following

embraced proceedings:

Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 1),

Union Pacific Railroad Company, Missouri

Pacific Railroad Company, Southern Pacific

Transportation Company, St. Louis

Southwestern Railway Company, SPCSL

Corp., and The Denver and Rio Grande

Western Railroad Company—Trackage

Rights Exemption—Burlington Northern

Railroad Company and The Atchison,

Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company;

Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 2),

Burlington Northern Railroad Company and

The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway

Company—Petition for Exemption—

Acquisition and Operation of Trackage in

California, Texas, and Louisiana;

Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 3),

Union Pacific Corporation, Union Pacific

Railroad Company, Missouri Pacific Railroad

Company, Southern Pacific Rail Corporation,

Southern Pacific Transportation Company,

St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company,

SPCSL Corp., and The Denver and Rio

Grande Western Railroad Company—Control

Exemption—The Alton & Southern Railway

Company;

Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 4),

Union Pacific Corporation, Union Pacific

Railroad Company, Missouri Pacific Railroad

Company, Southern Pacific Rail Corporation,

Southern Pacific Transportation Company,

St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company,

SPCSL Corp., and The Denver and Rio

Grande Western Railroad Company—Control

Exemption—Central California Traction

Company;

Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 5),

Union Pacific Corporation, Union Pacific

Railroad Company, Missouri Pacific Railroad

Company, Southern Pacific Rail Corporation,

Southern Pacific Transportation Company,

St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company,

SPCSL Corp., and The Denver and Rio

Grande Western Railroad Company—Control

Exemption—The Ogden Union Railway &

Depot Company;

Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 6),

Union Pacific Corporation, Union Pacific

Railroad Company, Missouri Pacific Railroad

Company, Southern Pacific Rail Corporation,

Southern Pacific Transportation Company,

St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company,

SPCSL Corp., and The Denver and Rio

Grande Western Railroad Company—Control

Exemption—Portland Terminal Railroad

Company;

Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 7),

Union Pacific Corporation, Union Pacific

Railroad Company, Missouri Pacific Railroad

Company, Southern Pacific Rail Corporation,

Southern Pacific Transportation Company,

St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company,

SPCSL Corp., and The Denver and Rio

Grande Western Railroad Company—Control

Exemption—Portland Traction Company;

Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 8),

Union Pacific Corporation, Union Pacific

Railroad Company, Missouri Pacific Railroad

Company, Southern Pacific Rail Corporation,

Southern Pacific Transportation Company,

St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company,

SPCSL Corp., and The Denver and Rio

Grande Western Railroad Company—Control

Exemption—Overnite Transportation

Company, Southern Pacific Motor Trucking

Company, and Pacific Motor Transport

Company;

Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 9),

Burlington Northern Railroad Company and

The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway

Company—Terminal Trackage Rights—

Kansas City Southern Railway Company;

Docket No. AB–3 (Sub-No. 129X), Missouri

Pacific Railroad Company—Abandonment

Exemption—Gurdon-Camden Line In Clark,

Nevada, and Ouachita Counties, AR; Docket

No. AB–3 (Sub-No. 130), Missouri Pacific

Railroad Company—Abandonment—

Towner-NA Junction Line In Kiowa, Crowley,

and Pueblo Counties, CO;

Docket No. AB–3 (Sub-No. 131), Missouri

Pacific Railroad Company—Abandonment—

Hope-Bridgeport Line In Dickinson and

Saline Counties, KS;

Docket No. AB–3 (Sub-No. 132X), Missouri

Pacific Railroad Company—Abandonment

Exemption—Whitewater-Newton Line In

Butler and Harvey Counties, KS;

Docket No. AB–3 (Sub-No. 133X), Missouri

Pacific Railroad Company—Abandonment

Exemption—Iowa Junction-Manchester Line

In Jefferson Davis and Calcasieu Parishes,

LA;

Docket No. AB–3 (Sub-No. 134X), Missouri

Pacific Railroad Company—Abandonment

Exemption—Troup-Whitehouse Line In

Smith County, TX;

Docket No. AB–8 (Sub-No. 36X), The

Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad

Company—Discontinuance Exemption—

Sage-Leadville Line In Eagle and Lake

Counties, CO;

Docket No. AB–8 (Sub-No. 37), The Denver

and Rio Grande Western Railroad

Company—Discontinuance of Trackage

Rights—Hope-Bridgeport Line In Dickinson

and Saline Counties, KS;

Docket No. AB–8 (Sub-No. 38), The Denver

and Rio Grande Western Railroad

Company—Discontinuance of Trackage

Rights—Towner-NA Junction Line In Kiowa,

Crowley, and Pueblo Counties, CO;

Docket No. AB–8 (Sub-No. 39), The Denver

and Rio Grande Western Railroad

Company—Discontinuance—Malta-Can ̃ on

City Line In Lake, Chaffee and Fremont

Counties, CO;

Docket No. AB–12 (Sub-No. 184X),

Southern Pacific Transportation Company—

Abandonment Exemption—Wendel-Alturas

Line In Modoc and Lassen Counties, CA;

Docket No. AB–12 (Sub-No. 185X),

Southern Pacific Transportation Company—

Abandonment Exemption—Suman-Bryan

Line In Brazos and Robertson Counties, TX;

Docket No. AB–12 (Sub-No. 187X),

Southern Pacific Transportation Company—

Abandonment Exemption—Seabrook-San

Leon Line In Galveston and Harris Counties,

TX;

Docket No. AB–12 (Sub-No. 188), Southern

Pacific Transportation Company—

Abandonment—Malta-Can ̃ on City Line In

Lake, Chafee, and Fremont Counties, CO;

Docket No. AB–12 (Sub-No. 189X),

Southern Pacific Transportation Company—

Abandonment Exemption—Sage-Leadville

Line In Eagle and Lake Counties, CO;

Docket No. AB–33 (Sub-No. 93X), Union

Pacific Railroad Company—Abandonment

Exemption—Whittier Junction-Colima

Junction Line In Los Angeles County, CA;

Docket No. AB–33 (Sub-No. 94X), Union

Pacific Railroad Company—Abandonment

Exemption—Magnolia Tower-Melrose Line In

Alameda County, CA;

Docket No. AB–33 (Sub-No. 96), Union

Pacific Railroad Company—Abandonment—

Barr-Girard Line In Menard, Sangamon, and

Macoupin Counties, IL;

Docket No. AB–33 (Sub-No. 97X), Union

Pacific Railroad Company—Abandonment

Exemption—DeCamp-Edwardsville Line In

Madison County, IL;

Docket No. AB–33 (Sub-No. 98X), Union

Pacific Railroad Company—Abandonment

Exemption—Edwardsville-Madison Line In

Madison County, IL;

Docket No. AB–33 (Sub-No. 99X), Union

Pacific Railroad Company—Abandonment

Exemption—Little Mountain Jct.-Little

Mountain Line In Box Elder and Weber

Counties, UT;

Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 10),

Responsive Application—Capital

Metropolitan Transportation Authority;

Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 11),

Responsive Application—Montana Rail Link,

Inc.;

Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 12),

Responsive Application—Entergy Services,

Inc., Arkansas Power & Light Company, and

Gulf States Utility Company;

Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 13),

Responsive Application—The Texas Mexican

Railway Company;

Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 14),

Application for Terminal Trackage Rights

Over Lines of The Houston Belt & Terminal

Railway Company—The Texas Mexican

Railway Company;