Document ID: NHTSA-2020-0117-0002
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd., and Sumitomo Rubber North America, Inc.
Posted Date: 2021-10-12T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56750-56753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22080]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0117; Notice 1]

Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd., and Sumitomo Rubber North 
America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 
Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd. and Sumitomo Rubber North 
America, Inc. (collectively, ``Sumitomo'') have determined that certain 
Sumitomo and Falken 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

[[Page 56751]]

4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) and Motorcycles. Sumitomo filed a 
noncompliance report dated November 12, 2020. Sumitomo subsequently 
petitioned NHTSA on December 4, 2020, and later amended its petition on 
April 8, 2021, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is 
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice 
announces the receipt of Sumitomo's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before November 12, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data, 
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the 
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and 
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building 
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building 
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. 
except for Federal holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging 
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater 
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of 
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in 
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish 
to receive confirmation that the comments you have submitted by mail 
were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with 
the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without 
change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of 
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the 
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials 
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be 
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will 
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority 
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials 
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and 
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at 
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for 
accessing the docket. The docket ID number for this petition is shown 
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a 
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 1947778).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Sumitomo has determined that certain Sumitomo and Falken truck 
tires do not fully comply with the requirements of paragraph S6.1.2(a) 
of 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). Sumitomo filed a noncompliance report dated November 12, 
2020, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance 
Responsibility and Reports. Sumitomo subsequently petitioned NHTSA on 
December 4, 2020, and later amended its petition on April 8, 2021, 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, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or 
Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of Sumitomo's petition 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 petition.

II. Tires Involved

    Approximately 8,275 of the following Sumitomo and Falken truck and 
bus radial tires, manufactured between January 26, 2020, and June 2, 
2020, are potentially involved:

 Sumitomo ST900 11R24.5 16PR
 Sumitomo ST528 11R24.5 16PR
 Sumitomo ST528 11R22.5 16PR
 Sumitomo ST710SE 11R22.5 144/142L
 Sumitomo ST710SE 285/75R24.5 144/141L
 Sumitomo ST710SE 11R24.5 146/143L
 Sumitomo ST788+SE 285/75R24.5 144/141L
 Sumitomo ST709SE 285/75R24.5 144/141L
 Sumitomo ST709SE 11R24.5 149/146L
 Sumitomo ST778+SE 11R24.5 149/146L
 Sumitomo ST788SE 285/75R24.5 147/144L
 Sumitomo ST948SE 11R24.5 149/146L
 Sumitomo ST908N 11R22.5 146/144L
 Sumitomo ST788SE 11R22.5 146/143L
 Sumitomo ST788SE 11R24.5 149/146L
 Sumitomo ST719SE 11R22.5 146/142L
 Sumitomo ST719SE 11R24.5 149/146L
 Sumitomo ST719SE 285/75R24.5 147/144L
 Sumitomo ST948SE 285/75R24.5 144/141L
 Sumitomo ST938 11R24.5 149/146L
 Falken RI130EC 11R22.5 146/143L
 Falken RI130EC 11R24.5 149/146L
 Falken GI388 11R24.5 149/146K
 Falken RI150EC 11R22.5 146/143L
 Falken RI130EC285/75R24.5 147/144L
 Falken RI151S 315/80R22.5 156/150L

III. Noncompliance

    Sumitomo explains that the noncompliance is that the subject tires 
may show visual evidence of bead separation near the edge of the rim 
flange when tested in accordance with paragraph S7.2 of FMVSS No. 119, 
and therefore, do not fully meet the requirements specified in 
paragraph S6.1.2(a) of FMVSS No. 119. Specifically, the bead separation 
is due to the heat-induced expansion caused by the misplacement of the 
joint tape and a change in the tape's composition.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S6.1.2(a) of FMVSS No. 119 includes the requirements 
relevant to this petition. When tested in accordance with the 
procedures of S7.2, a tire shall exhibit no visual evidence of tread, 
sidewall, ply, cord, innerliner, or bead separation, chunking, broken 
cords, cracking, or open splices.

V. Summary of Sumitomo's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V. 
Summary of Sumitomo's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided 
by Sumitomo. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not 
reflect the views of the Agency. Sumitomo described the subject 
noncompliance and contended that the noncompliance is

[[Page 56752]]

inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Sumitomo submitted the following 
reasoning:

1. The Deformation in the Subject Tires Does Not Affect Structural 
Integrity

    a. As described in its noncompliance report, Sumitomo discovered 
that a population of truck and bus radial tires may be susceptible to 
developing a visible deformation in a single, small area of the bead 
near the upper edge of a rim flange. In an email to NHTSA on March 3, 
2021, Sumitomo clarified that they used the term ``deformation'' to 
refer to the visual evidence. After cutting into the tires to inspect 
the issue, Sumitomo could see that the deformation was the result of a 
``breakdown in the bond between components in the bead,'' so that it 
fell within the definition of bead separation in FMVSS No. 109 New 
Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of More Than 4,536 
kilograms (10,000 pounds) and Motorcycles. Sumitomo states that FMVSS 
No. 119 does not define ``bead separation,'' but it states that ``[a]ll 
terms defined in the Act and the rules and standards issued under its 
authority are used as defined therein.'' Therefore, we looked to that 
term as it is defined in FMVSS No. 109. Further, Sumitomo claims, that 
after review the rulemaking history of FMVSS No. 119 and the definition 
of bead separation, Sumitomo concluded that the heat-induced expansion 
caused by the misplaced joint tape may technically fall within the 
definition of bead separation, even though it does not involve a 
structural weakness in the tire. Sumitomo states that its test data 
demonstrates that the deformation is not likely to expose an occupant 
of a vehicle equipped with such tires to a significantly greater risk 
than an occupant of a vehicle equipped with a fully compliant tire.
    b. With respect to the structure of the tire, the deformation 
results from two factors related to the tire's joint tape: Misplacement 
of the joint tape and a change in the tape's composition that altered 
the rubber's adhesiveness. Because joint tape is not a structural 
component of the tire, the resulting deformation is not an indication 
of a structural weakness in these tires. Moreover, the deformation 
induced by the joint tape does not affect the integrity of the adjacent 
components.
    c. In manufacturing tires, Sumitomo produces long strips of 
material that make up the innerliner. The innerliner is the inner-most 
component of the tire. During the tire-building process, the innerliner 
ends are joined together with an adhesive material (i.e., joint tape). 
Other components are then added on top of the inner liner. After all 
components are added, the built tire undergoes vulcanization (applying 
heat and pressure for a set period) to fully adhere the components and 
complete the tire-forming process. The joint tape's purpose is simply 
to keep the ends of the innerliner together during the tire-building 
process until the assemblage is vulcanized.
    d. Due to misplacement of the joint tape and a change in the tape's 
composition, the subject tires may develop a visible deformation in the 
bead area near the edge of the rim flange.
    e. The tire's bead core (made of several layers of steel cord 
bundled closely together) is enveloped by a separate layer of steel 
cords. The deformation is the separation between the joint strip rubber 
and the rubber chafer (which serves as the outer layer of the tire). 
The deformation occurs outside the structural components of the tire 
(i.e., it forms to the right of the filler cord).
    f. The deformation forms due to a lack of adhesion between the 
joint tape and components in the bead area, which can increase the 
percentage of butyl rubber content in this area. The increased butyl 
rubber content makes the material more susceptible to heat expansion 
and, combined with the lack of adhesion in the joint tape, the small 
area becomes susceptible to separations. Because the joint tape 
terminates in the bead area, the deformation will only occur there. The 
steel filler cords next to this area contain the deformation and 
prevent it from propagating beyond the specified area. Sumitomo's 
testing demonstrates that this deformation does not indicate, and will 
not subsequently cause, a structural weakness that could lead to a tire 
failure or rapid air loss.
    g. Sumitomo conducted a series of three tests to confirm the 
structural integrity of the subject tires. In one test (Test 1), 
SUMITOMO tested a tire returned by a Japanese customer due to the 
appearance of a deformation near the bead. The returned tire was a 
Dunlop 275/80R22.5 SP680 that the customer used for an unknown number 
of miles. For this test, Sumitomo inflated the tire to 100% of the 
JATMA-recommended inflation pressure for its maximum load (900 kPa or 
approximately 130 psi) and loaded the tire to 100% of its maximum load-
carrying capacity (3,450 kg). Sumitomo ran the tire on a test drum at 
80 km/h for 1,250 hours (approximately 100,000 km or just over 62,000 
miles). The deformation near the bead did not expand (it measured 40 mm 
before the test and 40 mm after the test) or cause air loss, and the 
tire did not otherwise fail during the testing.
    For the second test (Test 2), Sumitomo manufactured a test tire 
using intentionally misplaced joint tape composed of the same material 
as the tires listed in the noncompliance report. Test 2 seeks to take 
the tire to failure while it is underinflated (at 67% of the 
recommended inflation pressure) and overloaded (at 120% of the tire's 
maximum load-carrying capacity). As of the filing of this petition, the 
tire has completed three of the four test phases. In Phase One, 
Sumitomo ran the tire on the test drum at 50 km/h for 520 hours. In 
Phase Two, Sumitomo increased the speed to 60 km/h and ran the tire for 
285 hours. In Phase Three, Sumitomo increased the speed to 65 km/h and 
ran the tire for 190 hours. The tire developed a deformation as 
expected. Despite being underinflated and overloaded, the tire 
deformation did not cause air loss or otherwise cause the tire to fail. 
Since submitting the initial petition, Sumitomo has completed 
additional testing: Phases Four and Five of Test 2, which were run at 
70 km/h and 80 km/h respectively. Sumitomo stated that the results of 
Phases 4 and 5 were consistent with the previous phases of testing: 
``No air leak or structural damage''. The full results of Test Two, 
Sumitomo's complete petition and all supporting documents, are 
available by logging onto the FDMS website at: https://www.regulations.gov and by following the online search instructions to 
locate the docket number as listed in the title of this notice. 
Sumitomo contends that the test results provide further support for its 
position that the deformation and ``bead separation'' caused by the 
misplaced joint tape is not indicative of a structural weakness, and, 
therefore, that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle 
safety.
    In a third test (Test 3), Sumitomo manufactured two tires (Dunlop 
295/80R22.5 SP128A) with intentionally misplaced joint tape to test the 
tires in three severely overloaded conditions. During the testing, the 
tires developed deformations, as expected, near the bead in the area 
where the misplaced joint tape was applied. In the most extreme 
condition (loaded to 300% of the tire's maximum load-carrying 
capacity), the tires also developed a surface crack in the area of the 
misplaced joint tape. But even in these unrealistically severe 
conditions, the tire did not develop air leaks or otherwise 
structurally fail.
    h. In addition to these three tests, Sumitomo also manufactured 
four test

[[Page 56753]]

tires (two for each) with misplaced joint tape to conduct the endurance 
tests in FMVSS No. 119 and UNECE R54. In both tests, the tires 
developed deformations, but otherwise met the substantive performance 
requirements.

2. Conclusion

    a. Sumitomo claims that its testing demonstrates that the 
deformations that may form due to the misplaced joint tape are not 
indicative of a structural weakness and will not cause air loss.
    b. Sumitomo says that the tires maintain their structural integrity 
and air pressure and otherwise meet all of the labeling and performance 
requirements of FMVSS No. 119.
    c. Moreover, Sumitomo is not aware of any tire failures, air loss, 
crashes, or injuries related to this issue.
    Sumitomo concludes 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.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a 
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers 
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, 
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance 
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on 
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Sumitomo no 
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance 
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve 
equipment distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, 
offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into 
interstate commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after 
Sumitomo notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-22080 Filed 10-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P