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
10806 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 47 / Thursday, March 12, 2009 / Notices 

depending on the load version of the 

tire. The Tire & Rim Association (T&RA) 

standard ‘‘P. 1–34’’ specifies pressure 

level options for the maximum 

permissible inflation pressure marking 

for a corresponding load version and its 

maximum tire load. The choice of the 

maximum inflation pressure level then 

becomes the choice of the tire 

manufacturer, as long as it is in 

compliance with the established values 

under FMVSS No. 139 paragraph S5.5.4. 

For the subject P235/55R17 standard 

load tire, both maximum inflation 

pressure values (350 kPa and 300 kPa) 

are acceptable choices. 

(3) Maximum Pressure Marking— 

Paragraphs S5.5 and S5.5(c) of FMVSS 

No. 139 both specify that each tire must 

be marked on each sidewall with the 

maximum permissible inflation 

pressure. The manufacturer’s selected 

inflation pressure value must be marked 

on both sidewalls of the tire in kPa, 

followed by the appropriate PSI value 

(FMVSS No. 139 paragraph S5.5.4(a)) in 

parentheses. Since only one selection is 

allowed, the same value is required on 

both sidewalls. Therefore, the 

noncompliance lies only in the fact that 

both values have been applied to the 

same tire. 

(4) Strength—Each standard load tire 

has a specified tire strength 

requirement. This requirement is 

defined in FMVSS No. 139 paragraph 

S6.5 (and FMVSS No. 109 paragraph 

S5.3) and must be met whether the 

selected maximum permissible pressure 

marking value is 240 kPa (35 PSI), 300 

kPa (44 PSI), or 350 kPa (51 PSI). The 

Michelin P235/55 R17 98H MXV4 PLUS 

tire meets this requirement. The 350 kPa 

(51 PSI) maximum inflation pressure 

marking therefore has no impact on the 

tire’s performance. 

(5) Overloading—The use of either of 

the maximum inflation pressures 

displayed on the subject tire sidewalls 

as the source of information for the 

recommended inflation pressure will 

not result in an overloading of the tires 

nor reduce the load carrying capacity of 

the tires since both values are above the 

recommended inflation pressure (240 

kPa (35PSI)) for the tire’s maximum load 

rating. 

(6) Tire labeling—Maximum 

permissible inflation pressure labeling 

on tire sidewalls is poorly understood 

by the general public and it should be 

removed from tire sidewalls because it 

has limited safety value and may 

confuse customers about the proper 

source for the recommended inflation 

pressure. 

MNA also states that it has corrected 

the problem that caused these errors so 

that they will not be repeated in future 

production. 

MNA requested that NHTSA consider 

its petition and grant an exemption from 

the notification and recall requirements 

of the National Traffic and Motor 

Vehicle Safety Act on the basis that the 

noncompliance described above is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. 

NHTSA Decision 

Subsequent to the submission of its 

petition, MNA explained to NHTSA that 

although it had assigned a maximum 

sidewall marking pressure of 300 kPa 

(44 PSI) to the tires, the tires were 

manufactured to withstand and to safely 

accommodate a maximum pressure of 

350 kPa (51 PSI). MNA also explained 

that a ‘‘common green’’ is a universal 

tire subassembly that is manufactured in 

high volume and used as a core around 

which similar size tires having different 

nonstructural properties are assembled. 

The ‘‘common green’’ includes the 

major structural elements of a tire. The 

‘‘common green’’ for the subject tire was 

actually manufactured to performance 

specifications that require the tire to be 

able to withstand a maximum pressure 

of 350 kPa (51 PSI). MNA further 

explained that the decision to mark the 

lower pressure on the tire was based on 

marketing reasons, not safety concern. 

NHTSA does not contest that, as MNA 

argues, it is a common practice that a 

tire may be marked with a maximum 

pressure that is lower than its capacity. 

Since the load that is marked on both 

sides of the tire (i.e., 750 KG (1653 lb)) 

is correct; the recommended inflation 

pressure (240 kPa (35 PSI)) is well 

below both the correct tire pressure of 

300 kPa (44 PSI), and the incorrectly 

labeled tire pressure of 350 kPa (51 PSI); 

and, in any event, the tire was 

manufactured to safely accommodate a 

pressure of 350 kPa (51 PSI), the tire 

cannot be inadvertently overloaded. 

NHTSA agrees that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. The mislabeling 

does not cause any safety problems, 

such as increasing the probability of tire 

failure, if the tires were inflated to 350 

kPa under a load of 750kg, and it is not 

likely to result in unsafe use of the tires. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA has decided that MNA has met 

its burden of persuasion that the subject 

FMVSS No. 139 labeling noncompliance 

is inconsequential to motor vehicle 

safety. Accordingly, MNA’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 CFR 1.50 and 

501.8 

Issued on: March 5, 2009. 

Daniel C. Smith, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E9–5276 Filed 3–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

[Revenue Procedure 2009–14] 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request for Regulation Project 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Treasury, as part of its continuing effort 

to reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, invites the general public and 

other Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on proposed 

and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is 

soliciting comments concerning 

Revenue Procedure 2009–14, Pre-filing 

Agreement Program. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before May 11, 2009 to 

be assured of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue 

Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the regulations should be 

directed to Carolyn N. Brown at Internal 

Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20224, or at (202) 622–6688, or 

through the Internet at 

Carolyn.N.Brown@irs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Certain Transfers of Domestic 

Stock or Securities by U.S. Persons to 

Foreign Corporations. 

OMB Number: 1545–1684. 

Regulation Project Number: Revenue 

Procedure 2009–14. 

Abstract: Revenue Procedure 2009–14 

describes a program under which 

certain large business taxpayers may 

request examination and resolution of 

specific issues relating to tax returns. 

The resolution of such issues under the 

program will be memorialized by a type 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES