Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Notices 32895

already equipped with door beams and

reinforced bumpers, such as those built

for the Middle Eastern market. When it

encounters a vehicle that lacks this

equipment, J.K. stated that it makes the

necessary modifications and furnishes

NHTSA with an engineering report.

Addressing the Standard No. 302

compliance issue raised by Volkswagen,

J.K. stated that it inspects vehicle seats

for a U.S. part number, and if one is not

found, the material is treated with a

flame retardant. With these

modifications, as well as those outlined

in the petition, J.K. asserts that the nonU.S. certified 1987 Golf will comply

with all applicable standards.

NHTSA has reviewed each of the

issues that Volkswagen has raised

regarding J.K.’s petition. NHTSA

believes that J.K.’s responses adequately

address each of those issues. NHTSA

further notes that the modifications

described by J.K. to conform the vehicle

to Standard No. 212, 214, 301, 302, and

the Bumper Standard have been

performed with relative ease on

thousands of nonconforming vehicles

imported over the years, and would not

preclude the non-U.S. certified 1987

Volkswagen Golf from being found

‘‘capable of being readily modified to

comply with all Federal motor vehicle

safety standards.’’ NHTSA has

accordingly decided to grant the

petition.

Vehicle Eligibility Number for Subject

Vehicles

The importer of a vehicle admissible

under any final decision must indicate

on the form HS–7 accompanying entry

the appropriate vehicle eligibility

number indicating that the vehicle is

eligible for entry. VSP–159 is the

vehicle eligibility number assigned to

vehicles admissible under this decision.

Final Determination

Accordingly, on the basis of the

foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides that a

1987 Volkswagen Golf not originally

manufactured to comply with all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards is substantially similar to a

1987 Volkswagen Golf originally

manufactured for importation into and

sale in the United States and certified

under 49 U.S.C. § 30115, and is capable

of being readily altered to conform to all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141 (a)(1)(A) and

(b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority

at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

Issued on: June 19, 1996.

Marilynne Jacobs,

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

[FR Doc. 96–16119 Filed 6–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

[Docket No. 96–003; Notice 2]

Michelin North America, Inc.; Grant of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

This notice grants the application by

Michelin North America, Inc. (Michelin)

of Greenville, South Carolina, to be

exempted from the notification and

remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118

and 30120 for a noncompliance with 49

CFR 571.109, Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 109, ‘‘New Pneumatic

Tires.’’ The basis of the petition is that

the noncompliance is inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety.

Notice of receipt of the petition was

published on February 2, 1996, and an

opportunity afforded for comment (61

FR 3962).

Background

Section S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 109

requires that tires be labeled with the

maximum permissible inflation

pressure.

During the period of the 27th through

the 37th week of 1995, Manufacture

Francaise des Pneumatiques Michelin in

Clermont-Ferrand, France,

manufactured tires that had incorrect

maximum inflation pressure

information in pounds per square inch

(psi), labeled on both tire sidewalls.

Approximately 247 of the tires may

have reached the United States. The

subject tires, P185/75R14X Radial BW,

are correctly labeled with a maximum

inflation pressure of 240 kilopascals

(kPa). The label on these tires

incorrectly gives the maximum inflation

pressure as 33 psi. The maximum

inflation pressure should be 35 psi. All

tires are sold only in the replacement

market.

Michelin supported its petition for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

[Michelin does] not believe that this

minor error on the tire sidewall will

impact motor vehicle safety since the

pressure is correctly marked in kPa on

the tire sidewall. Furthermore, the

vehicle owners manual and/or vehicle

placard, as required by 49 CFR Part

571.110 S4.3(c), instructs the user of the

correct pressure to be used in the tire.

Additionally, many publications,

instructing the user to inflate tires to the

recommended inflation found on the

placard, are available to the public.

Examples of these documents include:

1. Tire Industry Safety Council (CTG–

1/94)—‘‘Motorist’s Tire Care and Safety

Guide’’—‘‘The correct air pressure is

shown on the tire placard (or sticker)

attached to the vehicle-door post, glove

box, or fuel door.’’

2. Tire Industry Safety Council—April

4, 1995, release—‘‘Owners should

inflate tires for normal operation to the

vehicle manufacturer’s recommended

inflation pressure found on the door

post, glove box, or in the owner’s

manual.’’

3. Rubber Manufacturers Association

(ALT 8–87)—‘‘Care and Service of

Automobile and Light Truck Tires,’’

‘‘Proper tire inflation is shown on the

vehicle’s tire placard. If there is no tire

placard, consult the vehicle owner’s

manual or check with the tire or vehicle

manufacturer for the proper inflation.’’

Comments

One commenter, who describes

himself as an ‘‘experienced tire

engineer,’’ responded to the February 2,

1996, Federal Register notice. The

commenter opposes granting the

Michelin petition on the basis that the

subject is not an ‘‘inconsequential

noncompliance,’’ and should be denied.

The commenter also trusts that a recall

will be ordered should Michelin have

prematurely, accidentally, or

inadvertently released or distributed the

247 P185/75R14x Radial BW tires. He

submitted the following reasons in

support:

1. Having the incorrect maximum

inflation pressure is a major safety

problem when it is on the tire.

Consumers and, more importantly, tire

mounters refer most often to the tire

itself for inflation information—and not

to the door post, glove box, door edge,

fuel door, or the usually missing

owner’s manual, or the many available

public documents referenced.

2. Any one noticing a value on the tire

being different from the other sources

would trust the tire over the other

information sources, particularly on a

Michelin tire—one of the more widelytrusted brands.

3. Having the error occur in the psi

value is much more detrimental than in

the kPa value, since 99.9999 ad

infinitum [percentage %] American

would use the psi value and not the

[kPa] value.

4. The actual conversion for 35 psi is

241 kPa—not 240 as Michelin claims.

5. * * * most gauges sold in the U.S.

as well as most self-serve air supply

gauges do not read in or show kPa.

6. If Michelin really wants to sell

these mere 247 tires, they can easily

brand the correct psi maximum value on

the tires. Michelin might have to sell
32896 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Notices

them as BLEMs or seconds at a reduced

price, but at least the tires would have

the correct maximum inflation pressure

of 35 psi, if not the correct maximum

inflation pressure of 241, actually

241.32, kPa.

Discussion

Michelin has admitted manufacturing

and not being able to locate

approximately 247 P185/75R14x Radial

BW tires that have incorrect maximum

inflation pressure information in

pounds per square inch labeled on both

tire sidewalls. The actual mark on these

tires is ‘‘240 kPa(33psi)MAX.PRESS,’’

and the required mark is ‘‘240

kPa(35psi)MAX.PRESS.’’ Michelin cites

the availability of several publications

which instruct users of the correct

maximum inflation pressure to be used

in tires. Michelin’s inconsequentiality

application does not address the

potential safety hazard which could be

caused by the reported noncompliance.

Instead, Michelin argues that the

noncompliance in labeling is minor

because the maximum inflation pressure

is correctly marked in kPa on the tire

sidewall.

The potential safety hazard is

overloading the vehicle on which the

tires are installed. To determine

whether there might be a potential

overloading problem, the agency

referred to The 1995 Tire and Rim

Association Yearbook. The tire load

limits at (240kPa/35psi) and (240kPa/

33psi) are very close, the difference

being approximately 55 lbs. (See Table

I.)

Table I—1995—The Tire and Rim

Association, Inc.

Tire Size Designation—P185/75*14

Tire Load Limits at Various Cold Inflation

Pressures Standard Load

kPa—220 to 240

psi—32 to 35

Kg—560 to 585

lbs.—1,235 to 1,290

NHTSA is not convinced that the

chart indicates that tire overloading is

likely to occur should customers and

tire mounters adhere to the

noncompliant tire label. The agency’s

belief is based on the assumption that

the tires will most likely be used on

passenger vehicles and that most

passenger vehicles are not loaded to

their maximum load weight. Usually

these vehicles carry an average of two

passengers and this would not create an

overloaded condition. Also, the average

tire owner is not likely to inflate tires on

a vehicle to the recommended

maximum inflation pressure that

appears on the tire. Finally, the number

of noncompliant tires is very small, only

247, which reduces the import of the

noncompliance.

Accordingly, for the reasons

expressed above, the petitioner has met

its burden of persuasion that the

noncompliance herein described is

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety,

and the agency grants Michelin’s

application for exemption from

notification of the noncompliance as

required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and from

remedy as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on: June 19, 1996.

Patricia Breslin,

Acting Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 96–16185 Filed 6–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

[Docket No. 96–068; Notice 1]

Michelin North America, Inc.; Receipt

of Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

Michelin North America, Inc.

(Michelin) of Greenville, South

Carolina, has determined that some of

its tires fail to comply with the labeling

requirements of 49 CFR 571.109,

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

(FMVSS) No. 109, ‘‘New Pneumatic

Tires,’’ and has filed an appropriate

report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573,

‘‘Defect and Noncompliance Reports.’’

Michelin has also applied to be

exempted from the notification and

remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.

Chapter 301—‘‘Motor Vehicle Safety’’

on the basis that the noncompliance is

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

This notice of receipt of an

application 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 application.

In FMVSS No. 109, Paragraph S4.3(a)

requires tires to be labeled with one size

designation, except that equivalent inch

and metric size designations may be

used.

Michelin’s description of noncompliance follows:

‘‘During the period of the 25th week

through the 45th week of 1995, the Ardmore,

Oklahoma, plant of Uniroyal Goodrich Tire

Manufacturing, a division of Michelin North

America, Inc., produced tires with two size

designations specified on one sidewall of the

tire. Specifically, in the upper sidewall of the

tire, in letters 0.44 inches high, the tire was

correctly marked as a 205/70R15. The tire

was incorrectly marked in the lower sidewall

area, in letters 0.25 inches high, as a 205/

75R15. This incorrect marking occurred on

the side opposite the DOT tire identification

number. The correct marking also appears in

two places on the side that contains the DOT

tire identification number. The markings

specified by 49 CFR 571.109 S4.3(a) call for

only one size designation. All performance

requirements of FMVSS #109 are met or

exceeded for these tires.

‘‘Approximately 4,708 205/70R15 BF

Goodrich Touring T/A SR4 tires were

produced with the aforementioned

information on one sidewall of the tire. Of

this total, as many as 730 were shipped to the

replacement market. The remaining tires

have been isolated in [Michelin’s]

warehouses and will be brought into full

compliance with the marking requirements of

FMVSS No. 109 or scrapped.’’

Michelin supported its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

‘‘1. All tires have a paper label, showing

the correct size, applied to the tire tread.

Tires are generally ‘pulled from the rack’

based on the paper label. Thus information

on the correct tire size for the application

would be available.

‘‘2. The tire size is incorrect, in one of four

places, only with respect to the aspect ratio

(or series), that is 75. Both the section width

designation of 205 and the rim diameter code

of 15 are correct. The correct maximum load

and inflation pressure for the 205/70R15 is

molded on both sides of the tire.

‘‘3. The tire size is correctly stamped on

both sides in letters 0.44 inch high. Thus

attention should be more readily drawn to

the correct tire size than to the incorrect size

which is in much smaller letters.

‘‘4. When these tires are mounted on the

vehicle, the ‘clean’ side (i.e. the side without

the bar code lines) is mounted out. Thus

when mounting these tires on a vehicle, the

proper size designation is readily apparent in

two places on the sidewall.’’

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments on the application of

Michelin, described above. Comments

should refer to the docket number and

be submitted to: Docket Section,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, Room 5109, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C.,

20590. It is requested but not required

that six copies be submitted.

All comments received before the

close of business on the closing date

indicated below will be considered. The

application and supporting materials,

and all comments received after the

closing date, will also be filed and will

be considered to the extent possible.

When the application is granted or

denied, the notice will be published in

the Federal Register pursuant to the

authority indicated below. Comment

closing date: July 25, 1996.

(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegation of

authority at 49 CFR 501.8)