Michelin North America, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 10805-10806 [E9-5276]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 47 / Thursday, March 12, 2009 / Notices
cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:56 Mar 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
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:
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10805
https://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
E:\FR\FM\12MRN1.SGM
12MRN1
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:56 Mar 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
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.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and
501.8
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.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
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
E:\FR\FM\12MRN1.SGM
12MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 47 (Thursday, March 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10805-10806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5276]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: https://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
[[Page 10806]]
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