Michelin North America, Incorporated, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 30963-30964 [2013-12359]

Download as PDF sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Notices Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors: Replacement of the passenger side rearview mirror with a component from the U.S.-model BMW 5-series or inscription of the required warning statement on the face of that mirror. Standard No. 114 Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention: Reprogramming the vehicle computer to activate the required safety systems. Standard No. 118 Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel Systems: Reprogramming the vehicle computer to prevent the operation of these systems when the ignition is turned off. Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection: Reprogramming the vehicle computer to activate the audible warning system and installation of vehicle airbags, sensors, front passenger and rear seat belts, child seat support mount, rear window shelf, and instrument panel support tube from the U.S.-model BMW 5-series. Standard No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies: Replacement of front passenger and rear seatbelts with components from the U.S.-model BMW 5-series. Standard No. 225 Child Restraint Anchorage Systems: Installation of child seat support mounts from the U.S.model BMW 5-series. Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity: Installation of an evaporative system with a rollover and check valve from the U.S.-model BMW 5-series. Standard No. 401 Interior Trunk Release: Installation of U.S.-model BMW 5-series interior trunk release components. The petitioner states that the bumper carriers, bumper shocks, deformation elements, and support structures will be replaced with U.S.-model 5-series components to meet the requirements of the Bumper Standard of 49 CFR part 581. The petitioner additionally states that a vehicle identification plate must be affixed to the vehicle near the left windshield post to meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565. As previously stated, the petitioner claims that the vehicle, is capable of being modified to comply with all requirements of FMVSS No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection. NHTSA seeks specific comments on whether the vehicle, which is manufactured for sale in the European Market, is in fact capable of being modified to comply with all requirements of FMVSS No. 208, including the unbelted occupant protection requirements of this standard. All comments received before the close of business on the closing date VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 May 22, 2013 Jkt 229001 indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.7; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8. Issued on: May 17, 2013. Claude H. Harris, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. 2013–12356 Filed 5–22–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2011–0083; Notice 2] Michelin North America, Incorporated, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT. ACTION: Grant of Petition. AGENCY: SUMMARY: Michelin North America, Inc. (MNA), has determined that certain Michelin brand passenger car replacement tires, do not fully comply with paragraph S5.5 1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles. MNA has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports on June 2, 2011. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule implementing those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556, MNA has petitioned 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. Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period, on April 4, 2012 in the Federal Register (77 FR 20483). No comments were received. To view the petition and all supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site 1 In its petition MNA states its belief that the subject tires do not meet the load marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 571.139 S5.5(d). However, the actual noncompliance is due to an error in the tire size designation marking required by 49 CFR 571.139 S5.5(b) which causes the load marking to appear to be incorrect. PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 30963 at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions to locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2011– 0083.’’ For further information on this decision contact Mr. Jack Chern, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366–0661, facsimile (202) 493– 0073. Tires Involved: Affected are approximately 17,500 Michelin Primacy MXV4 TL passenger car replacement tires labeled as sizes P205 65 R15 94H, P205 65 R15 94V, and P225 55 R17 97H that were manufactured by SC Michelin Romania SA in Victoria, Romania between January 9, 2011 and May 28, 2011. Summary of MNA’s Analysis And Arguments: MNA explained that the noncompliance is a tire sidewall labeling error. A prefix letter ‘‘P’’ was inadvertently added to the tire size designation required by paragraph S5.5 (b) by FMVSS No. 139. The tire was designed to comply with the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization (ETRTO) standard for maximum load and inflation pressure. The Max Load and Max Pressure markings on the tire are correct and the tire passes all certification requirements at the marked loads/pressures under 49 CFR 571.139. The mix of ETRTO loads with the ‘‘P’’-metric size designation causes the tire to be noncompliant with both the ETRTO standard and the Tire and Rim Association (T&RA) standard, thus becoming noncompliant with the labeling requirements of 49 CPR 571.139 S5.5. All other markings are compliant with the FMVSS requirements. MNA stated its belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons: 1. Both the 205/65 R15 and the 225/ 55 R17 radial tire were originally conceived as a Euro-metric radial tire. Both tires when certifying to DOT requirements were tested in accordance with safety standard FMVSS No. 139 as well as the ETRTO standard for dimensions, pressure, load, and performance. The subject tires meet or exceed all of the minimum performance requirements for FMVSS No. 139 at the load and pressure marked on the respective sidewall. 2. The P-metric version of the tire dimensions specify a maximum load and pressure that is less than the maximum load and associated pressure of the Euro-metric dimension. Performance capabilities as P-metric dimensions exceed all P-metric requirements. E:\FR\FM\23MYN1.SGM 23MYN1 30964 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Notices 3. Should the subject tires be selected and fitted based on their markings, no possibility of tire overloading exists. 4. The P-metric dimensional marks on the subject tires would be treated as such in the replacement market. At the dealer or consumer level, the inconsistency between the dimensional marking and the maximum load marking may lead to some confusion at the time of installation, but fitment would still be acceptable. 5. Whether the tires are fitted as Pmetric dimensions per the current industry fitment guide, or fitted according to the subject tire’s sidewall’s maximum load. These tires do not risk the possibility of being overloaded when making a replacement tire selection for vehicle fitment. In addition, MNA states that it has corrected the problem that caused the noncompliance so that it will not reoccur in future production. In summation, MNA believes that the subject noncompliance 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. Requirement Background: Paragraph S5.5 of FMVSS No. 139 specifically states: sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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 sidewall 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 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;* * * NHTSA’S Analysis of MNA’S Reasoning: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 49 U.S.C. 30120(h) and the rule implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, Michelin North America, Inc. (‘‘MNA’’), has petitioned for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 May 22, 2013 Jkt 229001 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Specifically MNA states that the inconsistence does not meet the load marking requirements of 49 CFR 571.139 S5.5(d). The affected tires in this petition of noncompliance are approximately 133,906 tires that were manufactured, of which approximately 17,500 Michelin P205/65R15 and P225/55R17 Primacy MXV4 TL tires were released and/or imported to the United States market whose sidewall markings contain the letter ‘‘P’’ as a prefix to the Euro-metric dimension marking, resulting in the creation of an unintended P-metric dimension, for which the marked maximum load value is not consistent with the published T&RA standard. As stated by Michelin North American, Inc ‘‘MNA’’, ‘‘whether the subject tires are fitted as P-metric dimensions per the current industry fitment guide, or fitted following the subject tire’s sidewall marked maximum load, these tires do not risk the possibility of being overloaded when marking a replacement tire selection for fitment. NHTSA Decision: NHTSA agrees with Michelin North America, Inc. (‘‘MNA’’) that the tires in question, Michelin 205/ 65R15 and 225/55R17, that the noncompliances are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The agency believes that the true measure of inconsequentiality to motor vehicle safety in this case is that there is no impact on the operational safety of the vehicles on which these tires are mounted. As MNA stated, both subject tires are marked on both the inboard and outboard sidewall with the prefix ‘‘P’’. Since the intended design max load specifications of these tires is higher than those specified with the ‘‘P’’ prefix under the T&RA standard then we can conclude that the parameters specified in the T&RA standard do not surpass the parameters molded on the tire sidewall, and hence safety is not compromised. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that MNA has met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 139 noncompliance for the replacement tires identified in MNA’s Noncompliance Information Report is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, MNA’s petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a 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 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 17,500 replacement tires that MNA no longer controlled at the time it determined that a noncompliance existed in the subject tires. 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. Issued on: May 17, 2013. Claude H. Harris, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. 2013–12359 Filed 5–22–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration [Docket ID PHMSA–2013–0094] Pipeline Safety: Workshop on Public Awareness Programs Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of workshop. AGENCY: SUMMARY: PHMSA is sponsoring a twoday public awareness workshop on June 19 and June 20, 2013, at the Hyatt Regency North Dallas hotel in Richardson, Texas. The workshop serves as an opportunity to bring pipeline safety stakeholders together to discuss ways to improve public awareness outreach. Federal and state regulators will share general findings from recent public awareness inspections and various stakeholders (Federal and state regulators, industry, pipeline operators, public, emergency response officials, local public officials, land planners, and excavators) will share their perspectives on what is working and what is not working with existing public awareness requirements and API RP 1162 (1st edition). The goal of the workshop is to discuss ways to strengthen pipeline safety public awareness. The workshop will be webcast. DATES: The workshop will be held on June 19–20, 2013. Name badge pick up E:\FR\FM\23MYN1.SGM 23MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 100 (Thursday, May 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30963-30964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12359]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0083; Notice 2]


Michelin North America, Incorporated, Grant of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Grant of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: Michelin North America, Inc. (MNA), has determined that 
certain Michelin brand passenger car replacement tires, do not fully 
comply with paragraph S5.5 \1\ of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 139, New pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles. MNA has 
filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and 
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports on June 2, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In its petition MNA states its belief that the subject tires 
do not meet the load marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 571.139 
S5.5(d). However, the actual noncompliance is due to an error in the 
tire size designation marking required by 49 CFR 571.139 S5.5(b) 
which causes the load marking to appear to be incorrect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule 
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556, MNA has petitioned 
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. Notice of receipt of the 
petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period, on April 
4, 2012 in the Federal Register (77 FR 20483). No comments were 
received. To view the petition and all supporting documents log onto 
the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions to 
locate docket number ``NHTSA-2011-0083.''
    For further information on this decision contact Mr. Jack Chern, 
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-0661, facsimile 
(202) 493-0073.
    Tires Involved: Affected are approximately 17,500 Michelin Primacy 
MXV4 TL passenger car replacement tires labeled as sizes P205 65 R15 
94H, P205 65 R15 94V, and P225 55 R17 97H that were manufactured by SC 
Michelin Romania SA in Victoria, Romania between January 9, 2011 and 
May 28, 2011.
    Summary of MNA's Analysis And Arguments: MNA explained that the 
noncompliance is a tire sidewall labeling error. A prefix letter ``P'' 
was inadvertently added to the tire size designation required by 
paragraph S5.5 (b) by FMVSS No. 139.
    The tire was designed to comply with the European Tyre and Rim 
Technical Organization (ETRTO) standard for maximum load and inflation 
pressure. The Max Load and Max Pressure markings on the tire are 
correct and the tire passes all certification requirements at the 
marked loads/pressures under 49 CFR 571.139. The mix of ETRTO loads 
with the ``P''-metric size designation causes the tire to be 
noncompliant with both the ETRTO standard and the Tire and Rim 
Association (T&RA) standard, thus becoming noncompliant with the 
labeling requirements of 49 CPR 571.139 S5.5. All other markings are 
compliant with the FMVSS requirements.
    MNA stated its belief that the subject noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:
    1. Both the 205/65 R15 and the 225/55 R17 radial tire were 
originally conceived as a Euro-metric radial tire. Both tires when 
certifying to DOT requirements were tested in accordance with safety 
standard FMVSS No. 139 as well as the ETRTO standard for dimensions, 
pressure, load, and performance. The subject tires meet or exceed all 
of the minimum performance requirements for FMVSS No. 139 at the load 
and pressure marked on the respective sidewall.
    2. The P-metric version of the tire dimensions specify a maximum 
load and pressure that is less than the maximum load and associated 
pressure of the Euro-metric dimension. Performance capabilities as P-
metric dimensions exceed all P-metric requirements.

[[Page 30964]]

    3. Should the subject tires be selected and fitted based on their 
markings, no possibility of tire overloading exists.
    4. The P-metric dimensional marks on the subject tires would be 
treated as such in the replacement market. At the dealer or consumer 
level, the inconsistency between the dimensional marking and the 
maximum load marking may lead to some confusion at the time of 
installation, but fitment would still be acceptable.
    5. Whether the tires are fitted as P-metric dimensions per the 
current industry fitment guide, or fitted according to the subject 
tire's sidewall's maximum load. These tires do not risk the possibility 
of being overloaded when making a replacement tire selection for 
vehicle fitment.
    In addition, MNA states that it has corrected the problem that 
caused the noncompliance so that it will not reoccur in future 
production.
    In summation, MNA believes that the subject noncompliance 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.
    Requirement Background: Paragraph S5.5 of FMVSS No. 139 
specifically states:

    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 
sidewall 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 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;* * *

    NHTSA'S Analysis of MNA'S Reasoning: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) 
and 49 U.S.C. 30120(h) and the rule implementing those provisions at 49 
CFR part 556, Michelin North America, Inc. (``MNA''), has petitioned 
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. Specifically MNA states that 
the inconsistence does not meet the load marking requirements of 49 CFR 
571.139 S5.5(d).
    The affected tires in this petition of noncompliance are 
approximately 133,906 tires that were manufactured, of which 
approximately 17,500 Michelin P205/65R15 and P225/55R17 Primacy MXV4 TL 
tires were released and/or imported to the United States market whose 
sidewall markings contain the letter ``P'' as a prefix to the Euro-
metric dimension marking, resulting in the creation of an unintended P-
metric dimension, for which the marked maximum load value is not 
consistent with the published T&RA standard. As stated by Michelin 
North American, Inc ``MNA'', ``whether the subject tires are fitted as 
P-metric dimensions per the current industry fitment guide, or fitted 
following the subject tire's sidewall marked maximum load, these tires 
do not risk the possibility of being overloaded when marking a 
replacement tire selection for fitment.
    NHTSA Decision: NHTSA agrees with Michelin North America, Inc. 
(``MNA'') that the tires in question, Michelin 205/65R15 and 225/55R17, 
that the noncompliances are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 
The agency believes that the true measure of inconsequentiality to 
motor vehicle safety in this case is that there is no impact on the 
operational safety of the vehicles on which these tires are mounted.
    As MNA stated, both subject tires are marked on both the inboard 
and outboard sidewall with the prefix ``P''. Since the intended design 
max load specifications of these tires is higher than those specified 
with the ``P'' prefix under the T&RA standard then we can conclude that 
the parameters specified in the T&RA standard do not surpass the 
parameters molded on the tire sidewall, and hence safety is not 
compromised.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that MNA has 
met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 139 noncompliance for 
the replacement tires identified in MNA's Noncompliance Information 
Report is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, MNA's 
petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted from the obligation 
of providing notification of, and a 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 17,500 replacement tires that MNA no longer 
controlled at the time it determined that a noncompliance existed in 
the subject tires. 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.

    Issued on: May 17, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-12359 Filed 5-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P