Document ID: NHTSA-2008-0118-0002
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Continental Tire North America, Inc.
Posted Date: 2008-06-26T04:00Z

[Federal Register: June 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 124)]
[Notices]               
[Page 36371-36372]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26jn08-108]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0118; Notice 1]

 
Continental Tire North America, Inc., Receipt 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 Standards (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) (see implementing rule 
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.
    This notice of receipt of Continental'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 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:

    S5.5 Tire Markings. Except as specified in paragraphs (a) 
through (h) 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 (h) 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 inch.
    (a) The symbol DOT, which constitutes a certification that the 
tire conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards;
    (b) The tire size designation as listed in the documents and 
publications specified in S4.1.1 of this standard;
    (c) The maximum permissible inflation pressure, subject to the 
limitations of S5.5.4 through S5.5.6 of this standard;
    (d) The maximum load rating;
    (e) The generic name of each cord material used in the plies 
(both sidewall and tread area) of the tire;
    (f) The actual number of plies in the sidewall, and the actual 
number of plies in the tread area, if different;
    (g) The term ``tubeless'' or ``tube type,'' as applicable; and

[[Page 36372]]

    (h) The word ``radial,'' if the tire is a radial ply tire.

    Continental explains that the noncompliance is that the sidewall 
marking incorrectly identifies the 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.''(emphasis added).
    Continental states that it discovered the mold labeling error that 
caused the noncompliance 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 is 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 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, these provisions 
only apply to vehicles and equipment that have already passed from the 
manufacturer to an owner, purchaser, or dealer.
    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 am to 5 pm 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, self-addressed 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 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.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 
CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

    Issued on: June 20, 2008.
Jeffrey Giuseppe,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. E8-14416 Filed 6-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P