Michelin North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

Issuing agencies

Abstract

Michelin North America, Inc. (MNA) has determined that certain Michelin TEX T195/65R22 T-type spare tires do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Manufactured from 1949 to 1975, Bias Ply Tires, and T-Type Spare Tires. MNA filed a noncompliance report dated May 1, 2024, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA (the "Agency") on May 29, 2024, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces the grant of MNA's petition.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 166 (Friday, August 28, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 166 (Friday, August 28, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55661-55663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-17648]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0049; 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).

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Michelin North America, Inc. (MNA) has determined that certain 
Michelin TEX T195/65R22 T-type spare tires do not fully comply with 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109, New Pneumatic 
Tires for Vehicles Manufactured from 1949 to 1975, Bias Ply Tires, and 
T-Type Spare Tires. MNA filed a noncompliance report dated May 1, 2024, 
and subsequently petitioned NHTSA (the ``Agency'') on May 29, 2024, for 
a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it 
relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces the grant of 
MNA's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayton Lindley, General Engineer, 
NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (325) 655-0547.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    MNA determined that certain Michelin Tex T195/65R22 do not fully 
comply with paragraph S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires for 
Vehicles Manufactured from 1949 To 1975, Bias Ply Tires, and T-Type 
Spare Tires (49 CFR 571.109).
    MNA filed a noncompliance report dated May 1, 2024, pursuant to 49 
CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. MNA 
petitioned NHTSA on May 29, 2024, 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 December 13, 2024, in the Federal Register 
(89 FR 101093). 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

[[Page 55662]]

locate docket number ``NHTSA-2024-0049.''

II. Tires Involved

    Approximately 532 Michelin TEX T195/65R22 T-type spare tires, 
manufactured between September 26, 2023, and March 6, 2024, were 
reported by the manufacturer.

III. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 109 includes the requirements 
relevant to this petition. This requirement specifies, among other 
things, that each tire must have the maximum permission inflation 
pressure permanently molded onto or into both tire sidewalls. In 
addition, for T-type spare tires with a maximum inflation pressure of 
420 kPa (60 psi), an additional marking that states ``Inflate to 420 
kPa (60 psi)'' is required on both sidewalls in a prominent location 
with a large font size. In total, the subject tires are required to 
have the maximum inflation pressure marked in four different locations.

IV. Noncompliance

    MNA explains that the subject tires incorrectly state the maximum 
permissible inflation pressure in one location on each sidewall and, 
therefore, do not comply with paragraph S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 109. 
Specifically, the tire markings show an incorrect pressure of 350 kPa 
(51 psi), instead of the correct 420 kPa (60 psi) in one location of 
the two required locations on each 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. They 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.
    MNA explains that the noncompliance was discovered when Indian 
authorities detected a marking error during a certification inspection 
and alerted Michelin Europe. European Original Equipment Quality then 
notified North American Original Equipment Quality that some Range 
Rovers equipped with the affected spare tires may have been shipped to 
the US. An investigation was initiated to determine if the affected 
product had entered the US market. MNA blocked 506 affected tires at 
the Nyiregyhaza, Hungary manufacturing facility and confirmed that 532 
tires were sold into the U.S. market as OEM spares. Upon detecting the 
subject noncompliance, MNA reports that production of the affected 
tires was suspended within 24 hours and molds with corrected markings 
were put into production on March 25, 2024.
    MNA explains that the incorrect maximum permissible inflation 
pressure marking is inconsistent with the correct sidewall marking: 
``Inflate to 420 kPa (60 psi)'' required by paragraph S4.3.5 of FMVSS 
No. 109, which is present and correctly marked in two locations on the 
tire. MNA states that although the subject tires were marked with two 
different inflation pressures, testing confirmed that they fully comply 
with all applicable FMVSS tire safety performance standards, including 
endurance, high speed performance, bead unseating, and tire strength. 
FMVSS No. 109 performance testing was conducted and confirmed that the 
subject tires passed under the specified conditions for both of the 
maximum inflation pressures marked on the tires: 350 kPa (51 psi) and 
420 kPa (60 psi).
    MNA believes that several factors improve the likelihood of the 
subject tires being used at the correct inflation pressure. First, 
tires are inflated to the correct pressure at the wheel mounting 
facility, eliminating the need for dealers to determine which pressure 
to follow. Additionally, when end users perform the recommended monthly 
pressure check, the most prominent spare tire sidewall marking required 
by paragraph S4.5 of FMVSS No. 109, specifies 420 kPa (60 psi) for the 
spare tire. Furthermore, the placard on the vehicle specifies 420 kPa 
(60 psi). MNA argues that the subject spare tire has been confirmed to 
be safe at both inflation pressures, and therefore it remains safe even 
if the customer adjusts the pressure to the lower value stated on the 
tire.

VI. NHTSA's Analysis

    The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to 
comply with a performance requirement in an FMVSS is substantial and 
difficult to meet. Accordingly, the Agency has not found many such 
noncompliances inconsequential.\1\ Potential performance failures of 
safety-critical equipment, like seat belts or air bags, are rarely 
deemed inconsequential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for 
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899 
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected 
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or 
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor 
vehicle equipment are affected also do not justify granting an 
inconsequentiality petition.\4\ Similarly, mere assertions that only a 
small percentage of vehicles or items of equipment are likely to 
actually exhibit a noncompliance are unpersuasive. The percentage of 
potential occupants that could be adversely affected by a noncompliance 
is not relevant to whether the noncompliance poses an inconsequential 
risk to safety. Rather, NHTSA focuses on the consequence to an occupant 
who is exposed to the

[[Page 55663]]

consequence of that noncompliance.\5\ The Safety Act is preventive, and 
manufacturers cannot and should not wait for deaths or injuries to 
occur in their vehicles before they carry out a recall.\6\ Indeed, the 
very purpose of a recall is to protect individuals from risk.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of Application for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23, 
2001) (rejecting argument that noncompliance was inconsequential 
because of the small number of vehicles affected); Aston Martin 
Lagonda Ltd.; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 
Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) (noting that situations 
involving individuals trapped in motor vehicles--while infrequent--
are consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; Denial of 
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 
21664 (Apr. 12, 2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be 
granted because the vehicle was produced in very low numbers and 
likely to be operated on a limited basis).
    \5\ See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for Determination 
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14, 
2004); Cosco Inc.; Denial of Application for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 29409 (June 1, 1999).
    \6\ See, e.g., United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 
759 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 the tires do not meet the performance and 
labeling requirements of FMVSS No. 109 at both inflation pressures, 
except for the incorrect inflation pressure marking. Additionally, in 
conjunction with the rationale listed below, because the subject tires 
are temporary use spare tires, we would anticipate that meeting the 
endurance and high-speed test requirements of FMVSS No. 109 in the 
underinflated condition would ensure a level of safety needed to travel 
short distances and durations under which the drivers would be using 
the subject tires in order to reach a service station safely.
    2. All the affected tires were original equipment on the Range 
Rover Sport L461 sold between 11/04/2023 and 04/23/2024. The risk of 
incorrect vehicle application is minimized because none of the tires 
were delivered to the replacement market for sale directly to 
consumers. Further, the reduced load carrying capacity of the tire at 
350 kPa (51 psi) is still sufficient to support the load of the vehicle 
on which they were sold, even when mounted on the more severe rear axle 
and loaded to the vehicle's maximum load or gross vehicle weight rating 
(GVWR).
    3. The large, prominent inflation pressure marking required by 
FMVSS No. 109 is present and has the correct marking, and the inflation 
pressure listed on the certification label is correct.
    4. While NHTSA's confidence in consumers making sensible choices is 
not unbridled, we note that in instances where owners perceive the 
inconsistent markings on the tires, the correct inflation pressure is 
both more prominent on the tires themselves and also available on the 
vehicle placard.

VII. NHTSA's Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that MNA has met its 
burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 109 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.
    MNA concludes by stating its belief that the subject noncompliance 
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and 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, 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)

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2026-17648 Filed 8-27-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


</pre></body>
</html>