[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3050-3052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00222]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0010; Notice 2]


Sumitomo Rubber USA, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Denial of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Sumitomo Rubber USA, LLC (SRUSA), has determined that certain 
Sumitomo Kelly brand commercial truck tires do not fully comply with 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic 
Tires for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms 
(10,000 pounds) and Motorcycles. SRUSA filed a noncompliance report 
dated January 3, 2017. SRUSA also petitioned NHTSA on January 31, 2017, 
for a decision that the

[[Page 3051]]

subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle 
safety.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abraham Diaz, Office of Vehicle Safety 
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
telephone (202) 366-5310, facsimile (202) 366-3081.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    I. Overview: Sumitomo Rubber USA, LLC (SRUSA), has determined that 
certain Sumitomo Kelly brand commercial truck tires do not fully comply 
with S6.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New 
Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 
kilograms (10,000 pounds) and Motorcycles (49 CFR 571.119). SRUSA filed 
a noncompliance report dated January 3, 2017, pursuant to 49 CFR part 
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. SRUSA also 
petitioned NHTSA on January 31, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) 
and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an exemption from the 
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the 
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor 
vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published with a 30-day 
public comment period, on April 20, 2017, in the Federal Register (82 
FR 18684). No comments were received. To view the petition and all 
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System 
(FDMS) website at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online 
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2017-0010.''
    II. Tires Involved: Affected are approximately 138 Sumitomo Kelly 
KDA size 11R22.5 commercial truck tires manufactured between December 
4, 2016, and December 17, 2016.
    III. Noncompliance: SRUSA explains that the noncompliance is that 
the required markings on one sidewall of the subject tires were 
inadvertently omitted and therefore do not comply with paragraph S6.5 
of FMVSS No. 119.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119, labelled 
``Tire Markings'' includes the requirements relevant to this petition:
    <bullet> Each tire shall be marked on each sidewall with the 
information specified in paragraphs (a) through (j) of S6.5.
    <bullet> The markings shall be placed between the maximum section 
width (exclusive of sidewall decorations or curb ribs) and the bead on 
at least one sidewall, unless the maximum section width of the tire is 
located in an area which is not more than one-fourth of the distance 
from the bead to the shoulder of the tire.
    V. Summary of SRUSA's Petition: SRUSA described the subject 
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is 
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, SRUSA submitted the following 
reasoning:
    SRUSA submits that the condition described above is inconsequential 
as it relates to motor vehicle safety. The tires were manufactured as 
designed and meet or exceed all performance requirements of applicable 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. All of the subject tires are 
marked with the correct information; however, the information appears 
only on one sidewall. Therefore, the noncompliant condition does not 
affect motor vehicle safety because the required information is still 
visible and available to the consumer on one sidewall of the tire. 
Additionally, SRUSA is not aware of any customer complaints related to 
this condition. The affected tire mold was immediately corrected and no 
additional tires were or will be manufactured with this noncompliance.
    SRUSA also noted that NHTSA had previously granted petitions for 
similar tire information noncompliances because of evidence showing 
that most consumers do not base tire purchases on tire information 
found on the tire sidewall. Moreover, SRUSA argued that the absence of 
the markings on one sidewall has no impact on the operational 
performance of the tires at issue or on the safety of the vehicles on 
which these tires may be mounted.
    SRUSA concluded by expressing the belief that the subject 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, 
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the 
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the 
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    In a supplemental email dated February 24, 2017, SRUSA stated that 
the subject tires are not asymmetric tires, not labeled with the words 
``OUTERSIDE'' or ``OUTER,'' and there is no designated outer or inner 
sidewall, thus, the tires may be mounted with the missing information 
on the inner or outward facing sidewall. In a supplemental email on May 
31, 2017, SRUSA informed NHTSA that the TIN is readily available on the 
sidewall that was marked correctly.
    To view SRUSA's petition, analyses, and any supplemental 
documentation in its entirety you can visit https://www.regulations.gov 
by following the online instructions for accessing the dockets and by 
using the docket ID number for this petition shown in the heading of 
this notice.

NHTSA's Decision

    NHTSA's Analysis: NHTSA has reviewed SRUSA's petition and has 
determined that the petitioner has not met the burden of persuasion 
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle 
safety. The omission of the maximum load rating and corresponding 
inflation pressure on one sidewall of the subject tires presents a 
safety hazard and is not inconsequential.
    The importance of the maximum load carrying capabilities and 
pressure label for tires was discussed in the FMVSS No. 119 final rule 
(Nov. 13, 1973; 38 FR 31299). In that document, NHTSA explained the 
purpose of labeling tires with the maximum load and pressure as 
follows:

    ``The trucking industry questioned the advisability of labeling 
maximum inflation and load rating on the tire because it appeared to 
prohibit the adjustment of pressures to road conditions. The purpose 
of the labeling is to . . . warn the user of the tire's maximum 
capabilities.''

    Furthermore, in the same rulemaking, NHTSA provided information to 
manufacturers that it was necessary to have loading and pressure 
markings on both sidewalls:

    ``Several manufacturers suggested that labeling appear on only 
one side of a tire when both sides of the tire, as mounted, will be 
available for inspection. Accordingly, motorcycle tires must now be 
labeled on one sidewall only, but the inaccessibility of both 
sidewalls on trucks and bus tires for visual inspection precludes 
one-sidewall labeling of these categories.''

    Since the subject tires can be installed or mounted on a vehicle 
with either sidewall facing outboard, some of these tires will be 
mounted on vehicles with the sidewall containing the missing 
information facing outboard. As the tires at issue are intended for use 
on heavy vehicles, it is quite possible that the necessary loading and 
pressure markings could be on a sidewall immediately adjacent to 
another tire in a dual wheel configuration. In such a case, the 
aforementioned markings would only be accessible if the dual wheel 
assembly is taken apart. Failing to mark the maximum load and 
corresponding inflation pressure for that load on both sidewalls of the 
tires puts an enormous burden on end users to ensure that the subject 
tires will be properly installed, used, and serviced in accordance with 
the tire's maximum capability. It is reasonable to expect the

[[Page 3052]]

vehicle user to overload a tire without the explicit guidance provided 
by the required sidewall markings.
    Finally, SRUSA stated that NHTSA had previously granted similar 
non-compliances, yet, they cited no specific petitions to support this 
statement. In fact, NHTSA recently denied a petition where a 
manufacturer omitted the markings designating the maximum load and 
corresponding inflation pressure for that load, See 82 FR 41678.
    NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds 
that SRUSA has not met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 119 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, 
SRUSA's petition is hereby denied and SRUSA is obligated to provide 
notification of, and a remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 
30118 and 30120.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2018-00222 Filed 1-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P