Hankook Tire America Corporation, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Hankook
|
Otto G. Matheke III
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
17 April 2020
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 75 (Friday, April 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21504-21506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08114]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0132; Notice 1]
Hankook Tire America Corporation, Receipt of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Hankook Tire America Corporation (Hankook) has determined that
certain Hankook Ventus V2 Concept 2 tires manufactured by Hankook's
indirect subsidiary, Hankook Tire Manufacturing Tennessee, LP, do not
fully comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No.
139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Hankook filed a
noncompliance report dated November 19, 2019, and subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on December 5, 2019, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This notice announces receipt of Hankook's petition.
DATES: Send comments on or before May 18, 2020.
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 may be
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 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.
[[Page 21505]]
When the petitions are granted or denied, notice of the decisions
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 dockets. 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 19477-78).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Hankook has determined that certain Hankook Ventus V2
Concept 2 tires, do not fully comply with paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS
No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles (49 CFR
571.139).
Hankook filed a noncompliance report dated November 19, 2019,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on December 5, 2019, 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 the Hankook'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 467 Hankook Ventus V2 Concept 2
tires, size 235/45R17V XL H457, manufactured between October 7, 2019,
and October 12, 2019, are potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance: Hankook explains that the noncompliance is due
to a mold error in which the subject tires, were marked with the date-
code in the Tire Identification Number (TIN) inverted and; therefore,
they do not meet the requirements of paragraph S5.5.1 (b) of FMVSS No.
139. Specifically, the date code was printed upside down.
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 139,
includes the requirements relevant to this petition. Each tire must be
marked on each sidewall with the information specified in paragraph
S5.5.1(b) and the tire size designation as listed in the documents and
publications specified in paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 139.
V. Summary of Hankook's Petition: The following views and arguments
presented in this section, V. Summary of Hankook's petition, are the
views and arguments provided by Hankook. They have not been evaluated
by the Agency and do not reflect the views of the Agency. The
petitioner described the subject noncompliance and stated their belief
that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, Hankook submitted the following
reasoning:
1. Under the Safety Act, each FMVSS promulgated by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) must be ``practicable,
meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective
terms.'' 49 U.S.C. 3011l(a). The Safety Act defines ``motor vehicle
safety'' as: the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk
of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or
performance of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death
or injury in an accident, and includes nonoperational safety of a motor
vehicle.
2. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9).
The Safety Act exempts manufacturers from the Safety Act's notice
and remedy requirements when NHTSA determines that noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. See 49 U.S.C.
30118(d) and 30120(h). Sections 30118(d) and 30120(h) demonstrate
Congress's acknowledgment that there are cases where a vehicle fails to
meet the requirements of a safety standard, yet the impact on motor
vehicle safety is so slight that an exemption from the notice and
remedy requirements of the Safety Act is justified. Hankook quoted the
following text from BMW of North America, LLC; Jaguar Land Rover North
America, LLC; and Autolive, Inc., 84 FR 19994 (May 7, 2019), Decision
of Petitions for Inconsequential Noncompliance.
Neither the Safety Act nor Part 556 defines the term
``inconsequential.'' Rather, the agency determines whether particular
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety based upon the
specific facts before it in a particular petition. In some instances,
NHTSA has determined that a manufacturer met its burden of
demonstrating that a noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. For
example, a label intended to provide safety advice to an owner or
occupant may have a misspelled word, or it may be printed in the wrong
format or the wrong type size. Where a manufacturer has shown that the
discrepancy with the safety requirement is unlikely to lead to any
misunderstanding, NHTSA has granted an inconsequentiality exemption,
especially where other sources of correct information are available.
3. The noncompliance involves new pneumatic radial tires used on
passenger vehicles. Such tires must comply with the labeling and
performance requirements of FMVSS 139, which specifies that ``each tire
must be labeled with the tire identification number required by 49 CFR
part 573.4 on the intended outboard sidewall of the tire.'' FMVSS 139
S5.5.1(b). Part 574(a) states that ``[e]ach new tire manufacturer must
conspicuously label on one sidewall of each tire it manufactures . . .
a TIN [tire identification number] consisting of 13 symbols and
containing the information set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(b)(3) of this section.'' Subparagraph (b)(3) requires a date code
``consisting of four numerical symbols. . . [that] must identify the
week and year of manufacture.'' 574.5(b)(3.)
4. The purpose of the labeling requirements in Part 574 is to
``facilitate notification to purchasers of defective or nonconforming
tires.'' Part 574.2. The date code portion of the TIN is required so
that purchasers can identify the week and year of the tire's
manufacture in the event the tire is subject to a safety recall.
5. The date-code characters reflect the correct week and year of
the tires' manufacture, but the date code is technically out of
compliance because the characters are inverted. Despite the inversion,
the date code meets the character height requirements of Part 574 and
is readily identifiable, permitting tire owners to easily determine the
week and year of manufacture.
6. NHTSA has previously granted a petition for inconsequential
noncompliance for a similar issue. In granting a petition from Cooper
Tire & Rubber Company, 81 FR 43708 (July 5, 2016) the Agency explained:
The Agency believes that in the case of a tire labeling
noncompliance, one measure of its inconsequentiality to motor vehicle
safety is whether the mislabeling would affect the manufacturer's or
consumer's ability to identify the mislabeled tires properly, should
the tires be recalled for performance related noncompliance. In this
case, the nature of the labeling error does not prevent the correct
identification of the affected tires. 49
[[Page 21506]]
CFR 574.5 requires the date code portion of the tire identification
number to be placed in the last or correct position. In Cooper's case,
it is in the right-most position, however, the manufacture date code is
upside down. Because the label is located on the tire sidewall, it is
not likely to be misidentified. A reader will be able to read the date
code, by spinning the tire, and therefore inverting the date code will
allow it to easily be read.
As with the Cooper tires, the date code on the subject tires is
located on the sidewall, is not likely to be misidentified, and a
reader will be able to read and understand the date code. The subject
tires otherwise meet the marking and performance requirements of FMVSS
No. 139.
7. The labeling noncompliance at issue here is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety: the relevant information remains readily
identifiable, the Agency has granted a similar petition in the past,
the subject tires otherwise meet the marking and performance
requirements of FMVSS No. 139, and Hankook is not aware of any
complaints, claims or incidents related to the subject noncompliance.
Hankook concluded by expressing its 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.
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 tires that Hankook 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 Hankook
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. 2020-08114 Filed 4-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P