10804 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 47 / Thursday, March 12, 2009 / Notices 

approval, it must first publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

providing a 60-day comment period and 

otherwise consult with members of the 

public and affected agencies concerning 

each proposed collection of information. 

OMB has promulgated regulations 

describing what must be included in 

such a document. Under OMB’s 

regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an 

agency must ask for public comment on 

the following: 

(i) Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(ii) The accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

(iii) How to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; 

(iv) How to minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on those 

who are to respond, including the use 

of appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of responses. 

In compliance with these 

requirements, NHTSA asks for public 

comments on the following proposed 

collection of information: 

Title: Designation of Agent for Service 

of Process. 

OMB Control Number: 2127–0040. 

Requested Expiration Date of 

Approval: Three years from the 

approval date. 

Type of Request: Extension of 

previously approved collection. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit. 

Form Number: N/A. 

Abstract: This collection of 

information applies to motor vehicle 

and motor vehicle equipment 

manufacturers located outside of the 

United States (‘‘foreign manufacturers’’). 

Section 110(e) of the National Traffic 

and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 

(49 U.S.C. 30164) requires a foreign 

manufacturer offering a motor vehicle or 

motor vehicle equipment for 

importation into the United States to 

designate a permanent resident of the 

United States as its agent upon whom 

service of notices and processes may be 

made in administrative and judicial 

proceedings. These designations are 

required to be filed with NHTSA. 

NHTSA requires this information in 

case it needs to advise a foreign 

manufacturer of a safety related defect 

in its products so that the manufacturer 

can, in turn, notify purchasers and 

correct the defect. This information also 

enables NHTSA to serve a foreign 

manufacturer with all administrative 

and judicial processes, notices, orders, 

decisions and requirements. 

When NHTSA amended the 

regulation implementing that statutory 

requirement, codified at 49 CFR Part 

551, subpart D, NHTSA included an 

appendix containing a suggested 

designation form for use by foreign 

manufacturers and their agents. The 

purpose of the suggested designation 

format was to simplify the information 

collection and submission process, and 

thereby reduce the burden imposed on 

each covered manufacturer by 49 CFR 

Part 551, subpart D. To further 

streamline the information collection 

process, NHTSA has set up a customer 

Web site that may be accessed at http:// 

www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/ 

manufacture/agent/customer.html. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 120 hours. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

240 respondents. 

The Comments are invited on: 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Department, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

the accuracy of the Department’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

information collection; ways to enhance 

the quality, utility and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on respondents, including 

the use of automated collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

Issued on: March 9, 2009. 

John Donaldson, 

Assistant Chief Counsel for Legislation and 

General Law. 

[FR Doc. E9–5394 Filed 3–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0119; Notice 2] 

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 

Grant of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company 

(Goodyear), has determined that certain 

passenger car tires manufactured from 

2007 until March 2008 did not fully 

comply with paragraph S5.5(f) of 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 

(FMVSS) No. 139 New Pneumatic 

Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. 

Goodyear 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) and the rule implementing 

those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556, 

Goodyear 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. Notice of receipt of 

the petition was published, with a 30- 

day public comment period, on June 26, 

2008 in the Federal Register (73 FR 

36372). No comments were received. To 

view the petition and all supporting 

documents log onto the Federal Docket 

Management System Web site at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the 

online search instructions to locate 

docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2008–0119.’’ 

For further information on this 

decision, contact Mr. George Gillespie, 

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), telephone 

(202) 366–5299, facsimile (202) 366– 

7002. 

Affected are approximately 82,636 

Dunlop SP Sport Signature passenger 

car tires that were manufactured from 

2007 until March 2008 in the following 

sizes: 

205/55R16 91V, 

225/55R16 95V, 

205/50R17 93V, 

215/55R16 93V, 

P215/55R17 93V, 

205/65R15 94V, 

P205/60R16 91V. 

Paragraph S5.5(f) of FMVSS No. 139 

requires in pertinent part: 

S5.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in 

paragraphs (a) through (i) 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 (i) 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 inches * * * 

(f) The actual number of plies in the 

sidewall, and the actual number of plies in 

the tread area, if different; * * * 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 47 / Thursday, March 12, 2009 / Notices 10805 

Goodyear explains that the 

noncompliance is that the sidewall 

marking incorrectly identifies the 

number of plies in the tread of the tire. 

Specifically, the tires in question were 

inadvertently manufactured with 

‘‘Tread 3 Polyester + 2 Steel’’ marked on 

the sidewall. The labeling should have 

been ‘‘Tread 2 Polyester + 2 Steel + 2 

Polyester’’. (Emphasis added). 

Goodyear states that it discovered the 

mold labeling error that caused the noncompliance during a routine quality 

audit. 

Goodyear makes the argument that the 

subject tires were manufactured with 

the correct number of plies in the tread 

and only the sidewall marking is 

incorrect. 

Goodyear also contends that all of the 

markings related to tire service (load 

capacity, corresponding inflation 

pressure, etc.) are correct and that the 

mislabeling of these tires is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety 

because the tires meet or exceed all 

applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

performance standards. 

Goodyear also points out that NHTSA 

has previously granted petitions for 

sidewall marking noncompliances that 

it believes are similar to the instant 

noncompliance. 

Goodyear also stated that it will 

correct the problem that caused these 

errors so that they will not be repeated 

in future production. 

NHTSA Decision 

The agency agrees with Goodyear that 

the noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. The agency 

believes that the true measure of 

inconsequentiality to motor vehicle 

safety in this case is that there is no 

effect of the noncompliance on the 

operational safety of vehicles on which 

these tires are mounted. The safety of 

people working in the tire retread, 

repair, and recycling industries must 

also be considered. 

Although tire construction affects the 

strength and durability, neither the 

agency nor the tire industry provides 

information relating tire strength and 

durability to the number of plies and 

types of ply cord material in the tread 

and sidewall. Therefore, tire dealers and 

customers should consider the tire 

construction information along with 

other information such as the load 

capacity, maximum inflation pressure, 

and tread wear, temperature, and 

traction ratings, to assess performance 

capabilities of various tires. In the 

agency’s judgment, the incorrect 

labeling of the tire construction 

information will have an 

inconsequential effect on motor vehicle 

safety because most consumers do not 

base tire purchases or vehicle operation 

parameters on the number of plies in a 

tire. 

The agency also believes the 

noncompliance will have no measurable 

effect on the safety of the tire retread, 

repair, and recycling industries. The use 

of steel cord construction in the 

sidewall and tread is the primary safety 

concern of these industries. In this case, 

since the tire sidewalls are marked 

correctly for the number of steel plies, 

this potential safety concern does not 

exist. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA has decided that Goodyear has 

met its burden of persuasion that the 

subject FMVSS No. 139 labeling 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, 

Goodyear’s petition is granted and the 

petitioner is exempted from the 

obligation of providing notification of, 

and a remedy for, the subject 

noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 

and 30120. 

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

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 

501.8. 

Issued on: March 4, 2009. 

Daniel C. Smith, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E9–5277 Filed 3–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0087; Notice 2] 

Michelin North America, Grant of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

Michelin North America, Inc. (MNA), 

has determined that certain light vehicle 

tires that it manufactured during the 

period beginning September 22, 2007 

through October 26, 2007 (DOT weeks 

3707 and 4207), do not fully comply 

with paragraphs S5.5 & S5.5(c) of 49 

CFR 571.139 Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139 New 

Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light 

Vehicles. MNA has filed an appropriate 

report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, 

Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. Notice of 

receipt of a petition was published, with 

a 30-day comment period, on May 12, 

2008, in the Federal Register (73 FR 

27024). No comments were received. To 

view the petition and all supporting 

documents log onto the Federal Docket 

Management System Web site at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/. Then 

follow the online search instructions to 

locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2008– 

0087.’’ 

For further information on this 

decision, contact Mr. George Gillespie, 

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), telephone 

(202) 366–5299, facsimile (202) 366– 

7002. 

Affected are approximately 3,385 

Michelin brand P235/55R17 98H MXV4 

PLUS tires, produced September 22, 

2007 through October 26, 2007 (DOT 

weeks 3707 and 4207). Paragraphs S5.5 

& S5.5(c) of 49 CFR 571.139 require in 

pertinent part that: 

S5.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in 

paragraphs (a) through (i) 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 (i) 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 inches. 

S5.5(c) The maximum permissible inflation 

pressure, subject to the limitations of S5.5.4 

through S5.5.6 of this standard. 

MNA explained that the subject tires 

were manufactured with an incorrect 

maximum pressure value (350kPa (51 

PSI)) marked on the outboard (reference) 

sidewall while the correct maximum 

pressure value (300 kPa (44 PSI)) was 

marked on the inboard sidewall. MNA 

expressed its belief that both maximum 

pressure values marked on the tires are 

acceptable choices for this tire. MNA 

also believes that the noncompliance 

exists because two maximum pressure 

values have been applied to the same 

tire. 

MNA defends its belief that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety by stating the 

following reasons: 

(1) Performance requirements—The 

subject tires meet or exceed all of the 

minimum performance requirements of 

FMVSS No. 139. 

(2) Maximum Pressure Value— 

Paragraph S5.5.4 of FMVSS No. 139 

limits the choices for the allowed 

maximum inflation pressure to 240, 280, 

290, 300, 330, 340, 350, or 390 kPa 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES