49238 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Notices 

1,862 of the noncompliant tires are 

within its control and already remedied, 

and 2,101 remain in the replacement 

market in the U.S. 

BFNT described the noncompliance 

as a failure to mark the tires with a 

complete or partial TIN on the sidewall 

opposite the sidewall with the full TIN. 

Thus, BFNT describes the 

noncompliance as follows: 

Actual stamping is BLANK. (on one 

sidewall). Correct stamping should be: 

7XOUBD4 (on that sidewall). 

BFNT argued that the noncompliant 

tires meet or exceed all performance 

requirements of FMVSS No. 139, and, 

that the labeling noncompliance will 

have no impact on the operational 

performance or safety of vehicles on 

which these tires are mounted. 

BFNT further claimed that the TIN 

only becomes important in the event of 

a safety recall campaign so that the 

consumer may properly identify the 

recalled tire(s). The noncompliant tires 

here are marked in a manner that is 

sufficient for notice to consumers and 

compliant with tire labeling 

requirements prior to the adoption of 

the new tire marking requirements in 

2002. BFNT contends, therefore, that for 

this noncompliance, any safety recall 

campaign communication, if necessary, 

could include in the listing of recalled 

TINs with a direction to the consumer 

to read both sidewalls of each tire on the 

vehicle for the TINs or partial TINs so 

that the consumer would know that 

these noncompliant tires are included in 

any future recall. 

BFNT requested that NHTSA consider 

its petition and grant an exemption from 

the notification and remedy 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 

30120 on the basis that the 

noncompliance described above is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. 

NHTSA’s Decision 

NHTSA does not agree that BFNT’s 

noncompliance with FMVSS No. 139 is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

As discussed below, the tire markings 

required by paragraph S5.5.1(a) of 

FMVSS No. 139 provide valuable 

information to assist consumers in 

determining if their tires are the subject 

of a safety recall. 

The Firestone tire recalls in 2000 

highlighted the difficulty that 

consumers experienced when 

attempting to determine whether a tire 

is subject to a recall if the tire is 

mounted so that the sidewall bearing 

the TIN faces inward, i.e., underneath 

the vehicle. After a series of 

congressional hearings about the safety 

of and experiences regarding the 

Firestone tires involved in those recalls, 

Congress passed and the president 

signed into law the Transportation 

Recall Enhancement, Accountability, 

and Documentation (TREAD) Act on 

November 1, 2000. Pub. L. 106–414, 114 

Stat. 1800. 

One matter addressed by the TREAD 

Act was tire labeling. Section 11 of the 

TREAD Act required a rulemaking to 

improve the labeling of tires to assist 

consumers in identifying tires that may 

be the subject of a recall. 

In response to the TREAD Act’s 

mandate, NHTSA published a final rule 

that, among other things, required that 

the TIN be placed on a sidewall of the 

tire and a full or partial TIN be placed 

on the other sidewall. See 67 FR 69600, 

69628 (November 18, 2002), as amended 

69 FR 31306 (June 3, 2004). In the 

preamble to the 2002 final rule, the 

agency identified the safety problem 

which prompted the issuance of the 

rule. 67 FR at 69602, 69606 and 69610. 

The agency explained that when tires 

are mounted so that the TIN appears on 

the inward facing sidewalls, motorists 

have three difficult and inconvenient 

options for locating and recording the 

TINs. Consumers must either: (1) Slide 

under the vehicle with a flashlight, 

pencil and paper and search the inside 

sidewalls for the TINs; (2) remove each 

tire, find and record the TIN, and then 

replace the tire; or (3) enlist the aid of 

a garage or service station that can 

perform option 1 or place the vehicle on 

a vehicle lift so that the TINs can be 

found and recorded. Without any TIN 

information on the outside sidewalls of 

tires, the difficulty and inconvenience 

of obtaining the TIN by consumers 

results in the reduction of the number 

of people who respond to a tire recall 

campaign and a number of motorists 

who unknowingly continue to drive 

vehicles with potentially unsafe tires. 

BFNT suggests that a recall of these 

tires could include an instruction to 

check the inboard sidewall if the TIN is 

not found on the outboard sidewall. 

This approach is inadequate. The 

noncompliance here is the exact 

problem that plagued millions of 

Firestone tire owners in 2000 and one 

that Congress mandated that NHTSA 

address. When the TIN is placed on one 

sidewall of a tire and that sidewall is 

mounted on the inboard side of a wheel, 

it is very difficult and inconvenient for 

the consumer to locate and record the 

TIN. In such situations, consumers who 

attempt to determine if a tire is within 

the scope of a recall may not be able to 

read the inboard sidewall without 

taking one of the three inconvenient 

steps discussed above. The difficulty 

and inconvenience that locating a TIN 

under these circumstances poses serious 

impediments to the successful recall of 

the noncompliant tire, which may result 

in motorists continuing to drive their 

vehicles with potentially unsafe tires. 

While NHTSA has determined in the 

past that in some instances TIN marking 

omissions were inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety, those 

determinations occurred prior to the 

adoption of FMVSS No. 139 pursuant to 

the TREAD Act. Following the 

enactment of the TREAD Act, NHTSA 

found that there is a safety need for a 

full TIN on one sidewall and a full or 

partial TIN on the other sidewall. As 

previously discussed, FMVSS No. 139 

now requires TIN markings on both 

sidewalls of a tire so that consumers can 

readily determine if a tire is subject to 

a safety recall. Accordingly, the 

omission of a TIN or partial TIN on 

either sidewall is now considered to be 

a serious safety problem. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA has decided that the petitioner 

has not met its burden of persuasion 

that the noncompliance described is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

Accordingly, BFNT’s petition is hereby 

denied, and the petitioner must notify 

owners, purchasers and dealers 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 

provide a remedy in accordance with 49 

U.S.C. 30120. 

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

delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 

501.8) 

Issued on: August 14, 2008. 

Claude H. Harris, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. E8–19324 Filed 8–19–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0133; Notice 1] 

Hyundai Motor Company, Receipt of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

Hyundai Motor Company (Hyundai), 

has determined that certain replacement 

seat belt assemblies sold for various 

model and model year Hyundai 

vehicles, including the 2008 model year 

vehicles, did not fully comply with 

paragraphs S4.1(k) and S4.1(l) of 49 CFR 

571.209 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards (FMVSS) No. 209 Seat Belt 

Assemblies. Hyundai has filed an 

appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR 

Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Notices 49239 

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

30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 

CFR part 556), Hyundai 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 Hyundai’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 an unspecified quantity 

of seat belt replacement assemblies 

delivered prior to May 9, 2008. 

Paragraphs S4.1(k) and S4.1(l) of 

FMVSS No. 209 require: 

(k) Installation instructions. A seat belt 

assembly, other than a seat belt assembly 

installed in a motor vehicle by an automobile 

manufacturer, shall be accompanied by an 

instruction sheet providing sufficient 

information for installing the assembly in a 

motor vehicle. The installation instructions 

shall state whether the assembly is for 

universal installation or for installation only 

in specifically stated motor vehicles, and 

shall include at least those items specified in 

SAE Recommended Practice J800c, ‘‘Motor 

Vehicle Seat Belt Installations,’’ November 

1973. If the assembly is for use only in 

specifically stated motor vehicles, the 

assembly shall either be permanently and 

legibly marked or labeled with the following 

statement, or the instruction sheet shall 

include the following statement: 

This seat belt assembly is for use only in 

[insert specific seating position(s), e.g., ‘‘front 

right’’] in [insert specific vehicle make(s) and 

model(s)]. 

(l) Usage and maintenance instructions. A 

seat belt assembly or retractor shall be 

accompanied by written instructions for the 

proper use of the assembly, stressing 

particularly the importance of wearing the 

assembly snugly and properly located on the 

body, and on the maintenance of the 

assembly and periodic inspection of all 

components. The instructions shall show the 

proper manner of threading webbing in the 

hardware of seat belt assemblies in which the 

webbing is not permanently fastened. 

Instructions for a nonlocking retractor shall 

include a caution that the webbing must be 

fully extended from the retractor during use 

of the seat belt assembly unless the retractor 

is attached to the free end of webbing which 

is not subjected to any tension during 

restraint of an occupant by the assembly. 

Instructions for Type 2a shoulder belt shall 

include a warning that the shoulder belt is 

not to be used without a lap belt. 

Hyundai explains that the subject 

replacement seat belt assemblies were 

sold without the installation, usage, and 

maintenance instructions required by 

paragraphs in S4.1(k) and S4.1(l) of 

FMVSS 209. 

Hyundai makes the argument that the 

replacement seat belt assemblies in 

question are only made available to 

Hundai authorized dealerships for their 

use or subsequent resale and that the 

Hyundai parts ordering process used by 

its dealers clearly identifies the correct 

replacement part required by model 

year, model, and seating position. 

Furthermore, Hyundai states that its 

replacement seat belt assemblies are 

designed to be installed properly only in 

their intended application. 

Hyundai additionally states that 

technicians at Hyundai dealerships that 

replace seat belts have access to the 

installation instruction information 

available in workshop manuals. 

Installers other than Hyundai dealership 

technicians also have seat belt 

installation information available 

because Hyundai workshop manual 

information, including seat belt 

replacement information, is made 

available to the general public on the 

Hyundai Service Web site (http:// 

www.hmaservice.com) which provides 

free access to every Hyundai Shop 

Manual, including information about 

seat belt installation. 

Hyundai additionally argues that a 

significant portion of paragraph S4.1(k) 

appears to address a concern with 

proper installation of aftermarket seat 

belts into vehicles that were not 

originally equipped with these 

restraints. Hyundai also notes that SAE 

J800c which is cited in the regulation 

involves installation of ‘‘universal type 

seat belt assemblies,’’ particularly where 

no seat belt had previously been 

installed, and that these concerns do not 

apply to replacement seat belts. The 

vehicles involved in this petition have 

uniquely designed seat belt components 

and replacement seat belt assemblies are 

installed into the identical location from 

which the original parts were removed. 

Hyundai also states that proper seat 

belt usage instructions are clearly 

explained in the Owner’s Manual that is 

included with each new vehicle. 

Information concerning maintenance, 

periodic inspection for wear and 

function of the seat belts, as well as for 

their proper usage is included in the 

vehicle Owner Manual and this 

information equally applies to 

replacement seat belt assemblies. 

Hyundai first became aware of the 

noncompliance when it was contacted 

by NHTSA in response to a consumer 

inquiry received by NHTSA. 

Hyundai also stated that it has 

corrected the problem that caused these 

errors so that they will not be repeated 

in future production. 

In summation, Hyundai states that it 

believes that because the 

noncompliances are inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety that no corrective 

action is warranted. 

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. 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments on this petition. 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: 

a. By mail addressed to: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

b. By hand delivery to U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. The Docket Section is open 

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

except Federal Holidays. 

c. Electronically: by logging onto the 

Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS) Web site at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Comments may also be faxed to 1–202–

493–2251. 

Comments must be written in the 

English language, and be no greater than 

15 pages in length, although there is no 

limit to the length of necessary 

attachments to the comments. If 

comments are submitted in hard copy 

form, please ensure that two copies are 

provided. If you wish to receive 

confirmation that your comments were 

received, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard with the comments. 

Note that all comments received will be 

posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Anyone is able to 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.). DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement in the 

Federal Register published on April 11, 

2000 (65 FR 19477–78). 

You may view documents submitted 

to a docket at the address and times 

given above. You may also view the 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
49240 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Notices 

1ESPN’s then new owner, Regional Rail, LLC, a 

noncarrier, discovered that one of ESPN’s 

predecessors, Penn Eastern Rail Lines, Inc., had 

consummated the acquisition of the subject line in 

July 2003, but inadvertently failed to obtain prior 

Board approval for that acquisition. ESPN filed for 

and obtained such authority. See East Penn 

Railroad, LLC—Acquisition Exemption—Berks 

County, PA, STB Finance Docket No. 35089 (STB 

served Nov. 1, 2007). 

2Effective July 18, 2008, the filing fee for an OFA 

increased to $1,500. See Regulations Governing 

Fees for Services Performed in Connection with 

Licensing and Related Services—2008 Update, STB 

Ex Parte No. 542 (Sub-No. 15) (STB served June 18, 

2008). 

documents on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov by following the 

online instructions for accessing the 

dockets available at that Web site. 

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: September 19, 

2008. 

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

delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 

501.8). 

Issued on: August 14, 2008. 

Claude H. Harris, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. E8–19325 Filed 8–19–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Docket No. AB–1020X] 

East Penn Railroad, LLC—

Abandonment Exemption—in Berks 

and Montgomery Counties, PA 

On July 31, 2008, East Penn Railroad, 

LLC (ESPN) filed with the Board a 

petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for 

exemption from the provisions of 49 

U.S.C. 10903 to abandon an 8.6-mile 

line of railroad extending from milepost 

0.0 at Pottstown to milepost 8.6 at 

Boyertown, in Berks and Montgomery 

Counties, PA. The line traverses United 

States Postal Service Zip Codes 19464 

and 19512.1

The line does not contain federally 

granted rights-of-way. Any 

documentation in ESPN’s possession 

will be made available promptly to 

those requesting it. 

The interest of railroad employees 

will be protected by the conditions set 

forth in Oregon Short Line R. Co.—

Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 

(1979). 

By issuance of this notice, the Board 

is instituting an exemption proceeding 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final 

decision will be issued by November 18, 

2008. 

Any offer of financial assistance 

(OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will 

be due no later than 10 days after 

service of a decision granting the 

petition for exemption. Each OFA must 

be accompanied by a $1,500 filing fee. 

See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25).2

All interested persons should be 

aware that, following abandonment of 

rail service and salvage of the line, the 

line may be suitable for other public 

use, including interim trail use. Any 

request for a public use condition under 

49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail 

banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be 

due no later than September 9, 2008. 

Each trail use request must be 

accompanied by a $200 filing fee. See 49 

CFR 1002.2(f)(27). 

All filings in response to this notice 

must refer to STB Docket No. AB–

1020X, and must be sent to: (1) Surface 

Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20423–0001; and (2) 

Karl Morell, Of Counsel, Ball Janik LLP, 

1455 F Street, NW., Suite 225, 

Washington, DC 20005. Replies to the 

petition are due on or before September 

9, 2008. 

Persons seeking further information 

concerning abandonment procedures 

may contact the Board’s Office of Public 

Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and 

Compliance at (202) 245–0238 or refer 

to the full abandonment or 

discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR 

part 1152. Questions concerning 

environmental issues may be directed to 

the Board’s Section of Environmental 

Analysis (SEA) at (202) 245–0305. 

[Assistance for the hearing impaired is 

available through the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–

800–877–8339.] 

An environmental assessment (EA) (or 

environmental impact statement (EIS), if 

necessary) prepared by SEA will be 

served upon all parties of record and 

upon any agencies or other persons who 

commented during its preparation. 

Other interested persons may contact 

SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). 

EAs in these abandonment proceedings 

normally will be made available within 

60 days of the filing of the petition. The 

deadline for submission of comments on 

the EA will generally be within 30 days 

of its service. 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at http:// 

www.stb.dot.gov. 

Decided: August 11, 2008. 

By the Board, David M. Konschnik, 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Anne K. Quinlan, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–19035 Filed 8–19–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Docket No. AB–33 (Sub-No. 258X)] 

Union Pacific Railroad Company—

Abandonment Exemption—in Shelby 

County, TN 

Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) 

has filed a verified notice of exemption 

under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart F—Exempt 

Abandonments to abandon a 2.61-mile 

line of railroad known as the Memphis 

Subdivision, extending from milepost 

387.0 to milepost 389.61 in Shelby 

County, TN. The line traverses United 

States Postal Service Zip Codes 38107 

and 38108. 

UP has certified that: (1) No local 

traffic has moved over the line for at 

least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead 

traffic on the line; (3) no formal 

complaint filed by a user of rail service 

on the line (or by a state or local 

government entity acting on behalf of 

such user) regarding cessation of service 

over the line either is pending with the 

Surface Transportation Board or with 

any U.S. District Court or has been 

decided in favor of complainant within 

the 2-year period; and (4) the 

requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 

(environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.8 

(historic report), 49 CFR 1105.11 

(transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 

(newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 

1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental 

agencies) have been met. 

As a condition to this exemption, any 

employee adversely affected by the 

abandonment shall be protected under 

Oregon Short Line R. Co.—

Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 

(1979). To address whether this 

condition adequately protects affected 

employees, a petition for partial 

revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) 

must be filed. 

Provided no formal expression of 

intent to file an offer of financial 

assistance (OFA) has been received, this 

exemption will be effective on 

September 19, 2008, unless stayed 

pending reconsideration. Petitions to 

stay that do not involve environmental 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES