Notice2026-18064
Premiori LLC, 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
September 3, 2026
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
Premiori, LLC, (Premiori), has determined that certain Premiorri Solazo replacement passenger car tires do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Premiori filed an original noncompliance report dated June 28, 2022, and amended the report on October 27, 2022. Premiori petitioned NHTSA on July 7, 2022, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces the grant of Premiori's petition.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 170 (Thursday, September 3, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 170 (Thursday, September 3, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56721-56722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-18064]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0092; Notice 2]
Premiori LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Premiori, LLC, (Premiori), has determined that certain
Premiorri Solazo replacement passenger car tires do not fully comply
with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New
Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Premiori filed an original
noncompliance report dated June 28, 2022, and amended the report on
October 27, 2022. Premiori petitioned NHTSA on July 7, 2022, for a
decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces the grant of
Premiori's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayton Lindley, Safety Compliance
Engineer, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, (325) 655-0547.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Premiori determined that certain Premiorri Solazo
replacement passenger car tires do not fully comply with paragraphs
S5.5(a) and S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for
Light Vehicles (49 CFR 571.139).
Premiori filed an original noncompliance report dated June 28,
2022, and amended the report on October 27, 2022, pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Premiori
petitioned NHTSA on July 7, 2022, 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 Premiori's petition was published with a 30-
day public comment period, on May 23, 2023, in the Federal Register (88
FR 33190). 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-2022-0092.''
II. Tires Involved: Approximately 8 Premiorri Solazo passenger car
tires size 175/65R14 82H, manufactured between February 7, 2021, and
April 30, 2021, are potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance: Premiori explains that the noncompliance is due
to a mold error in which the subject tires do not have the required DOT
symbol and the full or partial tire identification number (TIN) on one
of the two sidewalls and therefore, do not comply with paragraph
S5.5(a) of FMVSS No. 139. The tires do have the required DOT symbol
(and TIN) on the other sidewall.
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraphs S5.5(a) and S5.5.1 of FMVSS No.
139 include the requirements relevant to this petition. Paragraph
S5.5(a) requires each tire to be marked on each sidewall with the
symbol DOT, which constitutes a certification that the tire conforms to
applicable FMVSSs. Paragraph S5.5.1 requires each tire to be labeled
with the TIN required by 49 CFR part 574 on the intended outboard
sidewall of the tire. Specifically, either the TIN or partial TIN,
containing all characters in the TIN, except for the date code and, at
the discretion of the manufacturer, any optional code, must be labeled
on the other sidewall of the tire.
V. Summary of Premiori's Petition: The following views and
arguments presented in this section, ``V. Summary of Premiori's
Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by Premiori. They do
not reflect the views of the Agency. Premiori describes the subject
noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety.
On or after February 17, 2022, Premiori inspected the molds used
for the subject tires. Premiori's investigation found that one (1) of
the
[[Page 56722]]
four molds that were used for the subject tires did not have the DOT
marking or TIN on one sidewall. Premiori provided information showing
that the subject tires met all other labeling requirements of S5.5 (a)-
(i), including the symbol DOT and a full TIN on one of the two
sidewalls. Premiori believes that there are no safety risks associated
with the affected tires stated that they have ``taken corrective
actions regarding this noncompliance'' and all four (4) tire molds now
are fully compliant.
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\ Where, as here, the noncompliance involves a
labeling failure, the petitioner's burden may still be substantial but
may vary depending on the noncompliance at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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
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 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
Premiori and is granting their request for relief from notification and
remedy based on the following:
1. Based on its review of the information submitted by Premiori,
NHTSA has no basis to believe that the tires do not meet the
performance and labeling requirements of FMVSS No. 139, except for the
missing symbol DOT and TIN on one sidewall of the affected tires.
2. Although the agency remains concerned that consumers may have
more difficulty reading a TIN on the inner sidewall of the tires after
the tire is installed on a vehicle, all of the information required for
successful registration and identification is present.
VII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that Premiori has met its burden of persuasion that the subject
FMVSS No. 139 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Premiori's petition is hereby 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 Premiori no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after
Premiori 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. 2026-18064 Filed 9-2-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 3, 2026.
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.