Michelin North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Michelin
|
Claude H. Harris
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
February 11, 2013
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9774-9775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03076]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0111; Notice 1]
Michelin North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Receipt of Petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Michelin North America, Inc. (Michelin),\1\ has determined
that certain BF Goodrich brand tires manufactured between June 12, 2011
and April 21, 2012, do not fully comply with paragraph S5.5(b) of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic
Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Michelin has filed an appropriate
report dated July 16, 2012, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Michelin North America, Inc, is a manufacturer of
replacement equipment and is registered under the laws of the state
of New York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR Part 556), Michelin submitted a petition 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.
This notice of receipt of Michelin'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.
Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 1,300 g-Force Sport
Comp2, size 205/45ZR17 88W, BF Goodrich brand tires manufactured
between June 12, 2011 and April 21, 2012.
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, these provisions
only apply to the subject 1,300 \2\ tires that Michelin no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Michelin's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR Part 556,
requests an agency decision to exempt Michelin as an equipment
manufacturer from the notification and recall responsibilities of 49
CFR Part 573 for the 1,300 affected tires. However, a decision on
this petition will not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of
the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, introduction or
delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the
noncompliant vehicles under their control after Michelin notified
them that the subject noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noncompliance: Michelin explains that the noncompliance is that,
due to a mold labeling error, the subject tires sidewall markings on
the opposite side of the full DOT TIN are lacking the designation
``Extra Load'' and thus do not conform to the requirements of 49 CFR
571.139 paragraph S5.5(b).
Rule Text: Paragraph S5.5 of FMVSS No. 139 requires in pertinent
part:
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 side-
wall 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 that 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 * * *
Summary of Michelin's Analysis and Arguments
Michelin believes that while the noncompliant tires lack the
marking ``Extra Load'' on the sidewall opposite of the full DOT TIN as
required by FMVSS No. 139, it is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety for the following reasons:
1. The subject tires meet or exceed all applicable FMVSS
performance standards.
[[Page 9775]]
2. Associated with the designation ``Extra Load'' is a higher
maximum load and a possible higher maximum inflation pressure. Each of
the subject tires has been marked on both sidewalls with a maximum load
of 560 kg (1235 lbs) which, under the ETRTO standard, corresponds to an
Extra Load (or Reinforced) tire of the size 205/45ZR17 and load index
of 88. The maximum inflation pressure marked beneath each maximum load
is 340 kPa (50 psi), which is consistent with an Extra Load tire.
3. Per FMVSS No. 139 and ETRTO standards, the marking ``Extra
Load'' alerts the installer to the fact that the subject tire has a
higher load carrying capacity than the standard load tire of the same
dimension. In the absence of the ``Extra Load'' mark, an installer
could fit the subject tire to a vehicle which requires a standard load
tire. But since the subject tire has the performance capacity of an
Extra Load tire, the load requirement of the standard load fitment
would be exceeded.
4. The subject tire is also a directional tire for which there is
no intended outboard sidewall, that is, the preferred direction of
rotation is marked on the sidewall, and when the subject tires are
mounted on a vehicle, the left side tires on the vehicle will show the
full DOT TIN and no Extra Load designation after the tire size. While
this may cause some confusion for the operator, the marked maximum load
capacity of 560 kg (1235 lbs) will be visible on the outboard facing
sidewall of all four tires, and will confirm the same maximum load
capacity of each fitted tire.
5. All other sidewall markings are consistent with the requirements
of FMVSS No. 139 for a passenger category tire and the non-conformity
of the subject tires has no impact on the load carrying capacity of the
tire on a motor vehicle, nor on motor vehicle safety.
Michelin has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected
future production and that all other tire labeling information is
correct.
In summation, Michelin believes that the described noncompliance of
its tires 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.
Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and
notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by
any of the following methods:
a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
b. By hand delivery to 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 Federal Holidays.
c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed
to 1-202-493-2251.
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 your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
DATES: Comment Closing Date: March 13, 2013.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Issued On: February 1, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-03076 Filed 2-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P