Document ID: NHTSA-2011-0083-0003
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petitions for Decisions of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Michelin North America, Inc.
Posted Date: 2013-05-23T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 100 (Thursday, May 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30963-30964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12359]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0083; Notice 2]

Michelin North America, Incorporated, Grant of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Grant of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: Michelin North America, Inc. (MNA), has determined that 
certain Michelin brand passenger car replacement tires, do not fully 
comply with paragraph S5.5 \1\ of 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 on June 2, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In its petition MNA states its belief that the subject tires 
do not meet the load marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 571.139 
S5.5(d). However, the actual noncompliance is due to an error in the 
tire size designation marking required by 49 CFR 571.139 S5.5(b) 
which causes the load marking to appear to be incorrect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule 
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556, MNA has petitioned 
for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 
U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Notice of receipt of the 
petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period, on April 
4, 2012 in the Federal Register (77 FR 20483). No comments were 
received. To view the petition and all supporting documents log onto 
the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions to 
locate docket number ``NHTSA-2011-0083.''
    For further information on this decision contact Mr. Jack Chern, 
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-0661, facsimile 
(202) 493-0073.
    Tires Involved: Affected are approximately 17,500 Michelin Primacy 
MXV4 TL passenger car replacement tires labeled as sizes P205 65 R15 
94H, P205 65 R15 94V, and P225 55 R17 97H that were manufactured by SC 
Michelin Romania SA in Victoria, Romania between January 9, 2011 and 
May 28, 2011.
    Summary of MNA's Analysis And Arguments: MNA explained that the 
noncompliance is a tire sidewall labeling error. A prefix letter ``P'' 
was inadvertently added to the tire size designation required by 
paragraph S5.5 (b) by FMVSS No. 139.
    The tire was designed to comply with the European Tyre and Rim 
Technical Organization (ETRTO) standard for maximum load and inflation 
pressure. The Max Load and Max Pressure markings on the tire are 
correct and the tire passes all certification requirements at the 
marked loads/pressures under 49 CFR 571.139. The mix of ETRTO loads 
with the ``P''-metric size designation causes the tire to be 
noncompliant with both the ETRTO standard and the Tire and Rim 
Association (T&RA) standard, thus becoming noncompliant with the 
labeling requirements of 49 CPR 571.139 S5.5. All other markings are 
compliant with the FMVSS requirements.
    MNA stated its belief that the subject noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:
    1. Both the 205/65 R15 and the 225/55 R17 radial tire were 
originally conceived as a Euro-metric radial tire. Both tires when 
certifying to DOT requirements were tested in accordance with safety 
standard FMVSS No. 139 as well as the ETRTO standard for dimensions, 
pressure, load, and performance. The subject tires meet or exceed all 
of the minimum performance requirements for FMVSS No. 139 at the load 
and pressure marked on the respective sidewall.
    2. The P-metric version of the tire dimensions specify a maximum 
load and pressure that is less than the maximum load and associated 
pressure of the Euro-metric dimension. Performance capabilities as P-
metric dimensions exceed all P-metric requirements.

[[Page 30964]]

    3. Should the subject tires be selected and fitted based on their 
markings, no possibility of tire overloading exists.
    4. The P-metric dimensional marks on the subject tires would be 
treated as such in the replacement market. At the dealer or consumer 
level, the inconsistency between the dimensional marking and the 
maximum load marking may lead to some confusion at the time of 
installation, but fitment would still be acceptable.
    5. Whether the tires are fitted as P-metric dimensions per the 
current industry fitment guide, or fitted according to the subject 
tire's sidewall's maximum load. These tires do not risk the possibility 
of being overloaded when making a replacement tire selection for 
vehicle fitment.
    In addition, MNA states that it has corrected the problem that 
caused the noncompliance so that it will not reoccur in future 
production.
    In summation, MNA believes that the subject noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to 
exempt it from providing recall notification of noncompliance as 
required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as 
required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
    Requirement Background: Paragraph S5.5 of FMVSS No. 139 
specifically states:

    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* * *
    (b) The tire size designation as listed in the documents and 
publications specified in S4.1.1 of this standard;* * *

    NHTSA'S Analysis of MNA'S Reasoning: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) 
and 49 U.S.C. 30120(h) and the rule implementing those provisions at 49 
CFR part 556, Michelin North America, Inc. (``MNA''), has petitioned 
for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 
U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Specifically MNA states that 
the inconsistence does not meet the load marking requirements of 49 CFR 
571.139 S5.5(d).
    The affected tires in this petition of noncompliance are 
approximately 133,906 tires that were manufactured, of which 
approximately 17,500 Michelin P205/65R15 and P225/55R17 Primacy MXV4 TL 
tires were released and/or imported to the United States market whose 
sidewall markings contain the letter ``P'' as a prefix to the Euro-
metric dimension marking, resulting in the creation of an unintended P-
metric dimension, for which the marked maximum load value is not 
consistent with the published T&RA standard. As stated by Michelin 
North American, Inc ``MNA'', ``whether the subject tires are fitted as 
P-metric dimensions per the current industry fitment guide, or fitted 
following the subject tire's sidewall marked maximum load, these tires 
do not risk the possibility of being overloaded when marking a 
replacement tire selection for fitment.
    NHTSA Decision: NHTSA agrees with Michelin North America, Inc. 
(``MNA'') that the tires in question, Michelin 205/65R15 and 225/55R17, 
that the noncompliances are 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 impact on the 
operational safety of the vehicles on which these tires are mounted.
    As MNA stated, both subject tires are marked on both the inboard 
and outboard sidewall with the prefix ``P''. Since the intended design 
max load specifications of these tires is higher than those specified 
with the ``P'' prefix under the T&RA standard then we can conclude that 
the parameters specified in the T&RA standard do not surpass the 
parameters molded on the tire sidewall, and hence safety is not 
compromised.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that MNA has 
met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 139 noncompliance for 
the replacement tires identified in MNA's Noncompliance Information 
Report 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, that noncompliance 
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    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, this decision 
only applies to the 17,500 replacement tires that MNA no longer 
controlled at the time it determined that a noncompliance existed in 
the subject tires. However, the granting of this petition does not 
relieve tire 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 
MNA 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.

    Issued on: May 17, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-12359 Filed 5-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P