Notice2024-30950
Michelin North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 30, 2024
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
Michelin North America, Inc. (MNA), has determined that certain Michelin Primacy Tour A/S replacement passenger car tires do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. MNA filed an original noncompliance report dated March 25, 2021, and subsequently, MNA petitioned NHTSA on April 7, 2021, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces the grant of MNA's petition.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 249 (Monday, December 30, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 106737-106739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30950]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0035; Notice 2]
Michelin North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
[[Page 106738]]
ACTION: Grant of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Michelin North America, Inc. (MNA), has determined that
certain Michelin Primacy Tour A/S replacement passenger car tires do
not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. MNA filed an
original noncompliance report dated March 25, 2021, and subsequently,
MNA petitioned NHTSA on April 7, 2021, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This notice announces the grant of MNA's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayton Lindley, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), telephone (325) 655-0547, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b8f2d9c1ccd7d696f4d1d6dcd4ddc1f8dcd7cc96dfd7ce"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="743e150d001b1a5a381d1a1018110d34101b005a131b02">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
MNA has determined that certain Michelin Primacy Tour A/S
replacement passenger car tires do not fully comply with the
requirements of paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 139, New Pneumatic
Radial Tires for Light Vehicles (49 CFR 571.139). MNA filed a
noncompliance report dated March 25, 2021, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. MNA subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on April 7, 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.
Notice of receipt of MNA's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on November 18, 2021, in the Federal Register
(86 FR 64595). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2021-0035.''
II. Tires Involved
Approximately 1,196 Michelin Primacy Tour A/S replacement passenger
car tires, size 235/65R18 106H, manufactured between January 3, 2021,
and January 23, 2021, were identified by MNA as being potentially
involved, however, MNA clarified that 1,139 tires were captured and
retained in MNA's inventory. Any decision on this petition will only
apply to the approximately 57 tires that MNA no longer controlled at
the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
III. Noncompliance
MNA explains that the noncompliance is due to a mold error in which
the subject tires contain a tire identification number (TIN) with an
inverted plant code and, therefore, do not comply with the requirements
specified in paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 139.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 139 includes the requirements
relevant to this petition.
<bullet> For tires manufactured on or after September 1, 2009, each
tire must be labeled with the tire identification number required by 49
CFR part 574 on the intended outboard sidewall of the tire.
<bullet> Except for retreaded tires, if a tire does not have an
intended outboard sidewall, the tire must be labeled with the tire
identification number required by 49 CFR part 574 on one sidewall and
with either the tire identification number or a partial tire
identification number, containing all characters in the tire
identification number except for the date code and, at the discretion
of the manufacturer, any optional code, on the other sidewall.
V. Summary of MNA's Petition
The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of MNA's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
MNA and do not reflect the views of the Agency. MNA describes the
subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, MNA submitted the following reasoning:
1. The TIN marking noncompliance does not create any operational
safety risk for the vehicle. The tires comply with applicable FMVSS and
all other applicable regulations.
2. The incorrect orientation of the TIN plant code has no bearing
on tire performance.
3. The subject tires are marked with all other markings required
under FMVSS No. 139, such as S5.5(c) maximum permissible inflation
pressure and S5.5(d) maximum load rating. The necessary information is
available on the sidewall of the tire to ensure proper application and
usage.
4. The subject tires contain the DOT symbol on both sidewalls,
thus, indicating conformance to applicable FMVSS.
5. The plant code on the intended outboard side of the tires
contain all the information required by 49 CFR 574.5 for the TIN (plant
code + size code + option code + date code), however the 3-digit plant
code is inverted. The text should read ``DOT 1M3'' and instead reads
``DOT [upsi]WL.''
6. The plant code orientation discrepancy only exists on the
intended inboard sidewall of the tire. The intended inboard sidewall
has the correct sequence of DOT + plant code + size code + option code
+ manufacturing date, with all characters oriented in the proper
direction.
7. For identification and traceability purposes the key information
of plant code and manufacturing date is present on the tire.
8. In the event that dealer/owner notifications are required,
either the intended marking (DOT 1M3) or the actual marking (DOT
inverted ``1M3'') would serve as an identifier of the tire.
9. Upon identification of the mismarking, Michelin instituted a
block on the affected tires and initiated a sorting of inventories. A
total of 1,139 of the 1,196 tires produced with the incorrect marking
were captured and retained in Michelin inventory.
10. The plant code plate in the affected mold has been restored to
its correct orientation.
11. The mismarking has been communicated to Michelin Customer Care
representatives in order to effectively handle any inquiries from
dealers or owners regarding the subject tires.
12. MNA contends that NHTSA has concluded in other petitions
related to similar TIN marking errors that this type of noncompliance
is inconsequential to safety. Most notably, Cooper Tire & Rubber
Company, 81 FR 43708 (July 5, 2016) petitioned for tires produced with
an inverted date code. MNA states that NHTSA concluded that the
inverted marking did not affect the consumers' ability to identify the
tire and other examples exist where TIN information was incorrect,
missing, or molded in the wrong sequence and NHTSA granted the
petition.
MNA concludes its petition by stating 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
[[Page 106739]]
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHTSA requested that Michelin provide compliance test data
for the subject tires while processing this request. Michelin
provided this data but requested confidential treatment under 49 CFR
part 512. This is reflected in a memo placed in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. NHTSA's Analysis: In determining inconsequentiality of a
noncompliance, NHTSA focuses on the safety risk to individuals who
experience the type of event against which a recall would otherwise
protect.\2\ In general, NHTSA does not consider the absence of
complaints or injuries when determining if a noncompliance is
inconsequential to safety. The absence of complaints does not mean
vehicle occupants have not experienced a safety issue, nor does it mean
that there will not be safety issues in the future.\3\ Further, because
each inconsequential noncompliance petition must be evaluated on its
own facts and determinations are highly fact-dependent, NHTSA does not
consider prior determinations as binding precedent. Petitioners are
reminded that they have the burden of persuading NHTSA that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
\3\ See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr.
12, 2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d
754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk
when it ``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden
engine fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some such
hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in
the future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has evaluated the merits of the petition submitted by MNA and
is granting MNA's request for relief from notification and remedy based
on the following:
1. Based on its review of the information MNA submitted, NHTSA has
no basis to believe that tires do not meet the performance and labeling
requirements of FMVSS 139, with the exception of the inverted plant
code.
2. NHTSA believes that manufacturers and consumers will be able to
identify the affected tires in the event of a recall for the following
reasons:
a. The oval surrounding the plant code portion of the TIN visually
groups the 3 characters from the rest of the TIN. This helps the reader
to understand that the mold plate for the plant code portion of the TIN
was put in place inverted.
b. The font style is such that it is evident that the characters
are inverted, however the inverted plant code could possibly be read as
``EWI,'' ``EWL,'' or ``EW1.'' None of these are currently assigned to
an active tire plant registered with NHTSA, and EWI in particular would
not be assigned because ``I'' is not a permitted symbol.
c. The inboard sidewall of the tire has the plant code molded in
the correct orientation.
3. NHTSA believes that the manufacturer has taken sufficient steps
to ensure that the affected tires are included in any future recalls
by:
a. Ensuring that the affected tires may be registered with either
the correct TIN or any of the possible interpretations of the inverted
characters.
b. Ensuring that any future safety-related recalls for the affected
tires will include TIN numbers with all the possible interpretations of
the inverted characters.
c. Coordinating with customer care representatives to handle
inquiries related to the inverted plant code characters.
VII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA
finds that MNA has met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS
No. 139 noncompliance in the affected tires is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. Accordingly, MNA's petition is hereby granted, and MNA
is consequently exempted from the obligation of providing notification
of, and a free 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 subject tires that MNA no longer controlled at the
time it determined that the noncompliance existed. 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)
Eileen Sullivan,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2024-30950 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 30, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.