Hankook Tire America Corporation, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 3378-3380 [2022-01133]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
3378
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2022 / Notices
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
of airport property at the Ottumwa
Regional Airport (OTM) under the
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).
Representatives of the Sponsor
requested a release from the FAA to sell
two tracts of land, 4.51 acres and 2.06
acres respectively. Both parcels will be
developed for light industrial use. The
FAA determined the request to release
property at the Ottumwa Regional
Airport (OTM) submitted by the
Sponsor meets the procedural
requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and the release of the
property does not and will not impact
future aviation needs at the airport. The
FAA may approve the request, in whole
or in part, no sooner than thirty days
after the publication of this notice.
The following is a brief overview of
the request:
The Ottumwa Regional Airport (OTM)
is proposing the release of two airport
parcels containing 4.51 acres and 2.06
acres. The release of land is necessary
to comply with Federal Aviation
Administration Grant Assurances that
do not allow federally acquired airport
property to be used for non-aviation
purposes. The sale of the subject
property will result in the land at the
Ottumwa Regional Airport (OTM) being
changed from aeronautical to nonaeronautical use and release the lands
from the conditions of the Airport
Improvement Program Grant Agreement
Grant Assurances in order to dispose of
the land. In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and (iii), the airport
will receive fair market value for the
property, which will be subsequently
reinvested in another eligible airport
improvement project for general
aviation use.
Any person may inspect, by
appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, any person may, upon
appointment and request, inspect the
application, notice and other documents
determined by the FAA to be related to
the application in person at the
Ottumwa City Hall.
Issued in Kansas City, MO, on January 18,
2022.
James A. Johnson,
Director, FAA Central Region, Airports
Division.
[FR Doc. 2022–01173 Filed 1–20–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Jan 20, 2022
Jkt 256001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2020–0020; Notice 2]
Hankook Tire America Corporation,
Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
AGENCY:
Hankook Tire America
Corporation (Hankook) has determined
that certain Hankook Dynapro MT2
tires, 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 February
19, 2020, and subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on March 11, 2020, for a
decision that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety. This notice announces
the grant of Hankook’s petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jayton Lindley, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
(325) 655–0547, jayton.lindley@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Overview
Hankook has determined that certain
Hankook Dynapro MT2 tires, do not
fully comply with paragraph S5.5(f) of
FMVSS No. 139, New pneumatic radial
tires for light vehicles (49 CFR 571.139).
Hankook filed a noncompliance
report dated February 19, 2020,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports, and subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on March 11, 2020, 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 Hankook’s
petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on August 28,
2020, in the Federal Register (85 FR
53436). One comment was received. To
view the petition and all supporting
documents log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) website at
https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2020–
0020.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
II. Tires Involved
Approximately 175 Hankook Dynapro
MT2 tires, size LT215/85R16,
manufactured between October 20,
2019, and November 30, 2019, are
potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance
Hankook explains that the
noncompliance is that the subject tires
were marked with the incorrect number
of nylon plies in the tread; and,
therefore, do not meet the requirements
of paragraph S5.5(f) of FMVSS No. 139.
Specifically, the tires were marked
‘‘TREAD 2 STEEL + 2 POLYESTER + 1
NYLON; SIDEWALL 2 POLYESTER’’,
when they should have been marked
‘‘TREAD 2 STEEL + 2 POLYESTER + 2
NYLON; SIDEWALL 2 POLYESTER.’’
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S5.5(f) of FMVSS No. 139,
includes the requirements relevant to
this petition. Each tire must be marked
on one sidewall with the actual number
of plies in the sidewall and the actual
number of plies in the tread area, if
different, as specified in paragraph
S5.5(f).
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
and do not reflect the views of the
Agency. In its petition, Hankook
describes the subject noncompliance
and contends that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, Hankook
offers the following reasoning:
1. The incorrect ply labeling
information does not affect the
operational safety of vehicles on which
the tires are mounted.
2. The tires meet or exceed the
performance requirements of FMVSS
No. 139, and they otherwise comply
with the labeling and performance
requirements of FMVSS No. 139.
3. Hankook is not aware of any
warranty claims, field reports, customer
complaints, or any incidents, accidents,
or injuries related to the subject
condition.
4. Hankook cites the Transportation
Recall, Enhancement, Accountability
and Documentation (TREAD) Act (Pub.
L. 106–414) and several of NHTSA’s
past grant notices of petitions for
decisions of inconsequential
noncompliance concerning the
mislabeling of ply information and
contend those are similar to the subject
petition. Hankook states that NHTSA
has routinely concluded the number of
E:\FR\FM\21JAN1.SGM
21JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2022 / Notices
plies is inconsequential to vehicle
safety. Hankook believes the same
reasoning applies to the subject tires
and that mislabeling the number of
nylon plies does not affect the
operational safety of the vehicles.
Further, Hankook states, the subject
tires correctly label the number of steel
plies, alleviating the safety concern for
the tire retread, repair, and recycling
industries.’’
Hankook argues 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.
Hankook’s complete petition and all
supporting documents are available by
logging onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) website at:
https://www.regulations.gov and by
following the online search instructions
to locate the docket number as listed in
the title of this notice.
VI. Public Comment
NHTSA received one comment from
the general public regarding Hankook’s
petition from Mr. Bruce Grim.1 Mr.
Grim stated that although mislabeling a
tire sidewall may seem inconsequential,
for some in the industry it is still an
important aspect of safety for
consumers. He suggested that the public
is not sufficiently notified at the point
of sale of the potential perils or hazards
due to the subject noncompliance. Mr.
Grim also states that in the event of a
recall, it is important that retailers and
consumers can identify the subject tires.
VII. NHTSA’s Analysis
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
A. General Principles
An important issue to consider in
determining inconsequentiality is the
safety risk to individuals who
experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise
protect.2 In general, NHTSA does not
consider the absence of complaints or
injuries to show that the issue is
1 See https://www.regulations.gov/comment/
NHTSA-2020-0020-0003.
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Jan 20, 2022
Jkt 256001
inconsequential to safety. ‘‘Most
importantly, the absence of a complaint
does not mean there have not been any
safety issues, nor does it mean that there
will not be safety issues in the future.’’ 3
‘‘[T]he fact that in past reported cases
good luck and swift reaction have
prevented many serious injuries does
not mean that good luck will continue
to work.’’ 4
Arguments that only a small number
of vehicles or items of motor vehicle
equipment are affected have also not
justified granting an inconsequentiality
petition.5 Similarly, NHTSA has
rejected petitions based on the assertion
that only a small percentage of vehicles
or items of equipment are likely to
actually exhibit a noncompliance. The
percentage of potential occupants that
could be adversely affected by a
noncompliance does not determine the
question of inconsequentiality. Rather,
the issue to consider is the consequence
to an occupant who is exposed to the
consequence of that noncompliance.6
B. NHTSA’s Response to Hankook’s
Petition
NHTSA has evaluated the merits of
the inconsequential noncompliance
petition submitted by the petitioner and
agrees that, based on the facts presented,
this specific noncompliance of the
subject tires is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. The Agency considered
the following prior to making this
determination:
1. Operational Safety & Performance:
NHTSA agrees that in this case, the
incorrect number of nylon plies labeled
3 Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR
21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
4 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’’).
5 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).
6 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3379
on the tire has no effect on the
operational safety of vehicles when the
affected tires meet the other
performance and labeling requirements
of the applicable FMVSS.
2. Tire Identification and Traceability:
The tires have the required information
per 49 CFR 574.5 to ensure that the tires
may be properly registered for the
purposes of a safety recall. The entire
TIN, including the plant code and
manufacturing date is both legible and
easily discernible.
3. Downstream Operations: The
Agency must also consider other
stakeholders, in addition to the
manufacturer and end-user.
Downstream entities involved in tire
repair, retreading, and recycling
operations require certain information
to determine if tires may be safely used
in their operations. The existence of
steel in a tire’s sidewall and tread can
be relevant to the manner in which it
should be repaired or retreaded. The use
of steel cord construction in the
sidewall and tread is the primary safety
concern of these industries. The Agency
believes the noncompliance of the
subject tires will have no measurable
effect on the safety of the tire retread,
repair, and recycling industries since
the tire sidewalls are marked correctly
for the number of steel plies.
4. Consumer Feedback and Focus
Groups: The Agency has concluded,
based on previous feedback, that the tire
construction information, specifically
the number of plies and cord material in
the sidewall and tread plies, influences
very few consumers when they are
deciding to buy a motor vehicle or
replacement tires. This conclusion is
based on information gathered from the
Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) that was
published in the Federal Register on
December 1, 2000, (65 FR 75222).
5. Public Comments: In response to
Mr. Grim’s comments, the Agency
agrees that the safety of the end-users is
a priority and has taken that into
consideration when analyzing this
petition. Furthermore, the Agency
agrees that the user’s ability to identify
a tire in the event of a recall is
important and finds nothing in the facts
of this petition that would impede tire
identification of the subject tires in the
event of a recall.
In summary, the Agency believes that
the specific incorrect labeling of the tire
construction information present in this
instance will have an inconsequential
effect on motor vehicle safety or any
related downstream tire repair, retread,
or recycling operations.
E:\FR\FM\21JAN1.SGM
21JAN1
3380
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2022 / Notices
VIII. NHTSA’s Decision
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA finds that Hankook has met its
burden of persuasion that the subject
FMVSS No. 139 noncompliance in the
affected tires is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
Hankook’s petition is hereby granted
and Hankook 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 Hankook no longer controlled at the
time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of 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. 2022–01133 Filed 1–20–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2019–0006; Notice 2]
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
AGENCY:
Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. (Volkswagen), has
determined that certain model year
(MY) 2015–2016 Audi A3 and Audi S3
motor vehicles do not comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment.
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Jan 20, 2022
Jkt 256001
Volkswagen filed a noncompliance
report dated January 28, 2019, and a
petition was received by NHTSA on
January 28, 2019, for a decision that the
subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety. This document
announces the grant of Volkswagen’s
petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
(202) 366–5304, Leroy.Angeles@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Volkswagen has
determined that certain MY 2015–2016
Audi A3 Sedan, S3 Sedan, and A3
Cabriolet motor vehicles do not comply
with paragraph S9.3.6. of FMVSS No.
108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment (49 CFR
571.108). Volkswagen filed a
noncompliance report dated January 28,
2019, pursuant to 49 CFR 573, Defect
and Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports, and a petition received by
NHTSA on January 28, 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 40 U.S.C. 30118 and 49 U.S.C. 30120,
Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
Notice of receipt of Volkswagen’s
petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on July 9, 2019,
in the Federal Register (84 FR 32830).
One comment was received. To view the
petition and all supporting documents
log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) website at
https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2019–
0006.’’
II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately
81,831 MY 2015–2016 Audi A3, S3
Sedan, and A3 Cabriolet motor vehicles,
manufactured between November 28,
2013, and July 28, 2016, are potentially
involved.
III. Noncompliance: Volkswagen
explains that the noncompliance is that
the subject vehicles are equipped with
turn signal pilot indicators that do not
meet the flashing rate as required by
paragraph S9.3.6 of FMVSS No. 108.
Specifically, the left turn signal
indicator does not have a significant
change in the flashing rate when the left
rear turn signal LED array becomes
inoperative.
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph
S9.3.6 of FMVSS No. 108 provides the
requirements relevant to this petition.
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Failure of one or more turn signal
lamps, such that the minimum
photometric performance specified in
Tables VI or VII of FMVSS No. 108 is
not being met, must be indicated by the
turn signal pilot indicator by a ‘‘steady
on,’’ ‘‘steady off,’’ or by a significant
change in the flashing rate.
V. Summary of Volkswagen’s Petition:
Volkswagen describes the subject
noncompliance and contends that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. The
following views and arguments
presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary
of Volkswagen’s Petition,’’ are the views
and arguments provided by Volkswagen
and do not reflect the views of the
Agency.
In support of its petition, Volkswagen
offers the following reasoning:
(a) The driver receives two different
indicator warnings that the rear brake light is
inoperative in the instrument cluster
immediately upon failure of the turn signal
lamp to comply with the photometry
requirements of FMVSS No. 108. This
happens because the brake light and
indicator light/turn signal are combined.
(b) The subject condition, the lack of a turn
signal pilot indicator flash rate change, is
limited to the condition in which the
outermost left rear turn signal lamp fails.
(c) In the case of LED array failure, both the
brake light and indicator light/turn signal
become inoperative. Should the required left
turn signal become inoperative, Volkswagen
confirmed that other auxiliary left turn signal
lights located on the trunk and the left side
mirror are still operational. Additionally, the
back-up lamp in the left rear tail lamp
assembly, the left brake light in the trunk lid
assembly, and the center high mount stop
lamp, will remain operational.
Volkswagen concludes 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.
VI. Public Comments: NHTSA
received one comment from the public.
This comment was received from an
individual who believed that
Volkswagen’s reasoning is unclear as it
stands, and that NHTSA should request
more information from Volkswagen or
deem the noncompliance consequential.
The commenter said that it is unclear as
to whether the ‘‘two different indicator
warnings in the instrument cluster’’ are
compliant and that a redundancy
should not be considered an appropriate
substitute for a well-functioning,
compliant failure indicator that’s
required by the FMVSS. The commenter
also said that the rule requirements are
E:\FR\FM\21JAN1.SGM
21JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 14 (Friday, January 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3378-3380]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01133]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0020; Notice 2]
Hankook Tire America Corporation, Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Hankook Tire America Corporation (Hankook) has determined that
certain Hankook Dynapro MT2 tires, 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
February 19, 2020, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on March 11, 2020,
for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces the grant of
Hankook's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayton Lindley, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), (325) 655-0547, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
Hankook has determined that certain Hankook Dynapro MT2 tires, do
not fully comply with paragraph S5.5(f) of FMVSS No. 139, New pneumatic
radial tires for light vehicles (49 CFR 571.139).
Hankook filed a noncompliance report dated February 19, 2020,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on March 11, 2020, 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 Hankook's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on August 28, 2020, in the Federal Register (85
FR 53436). One comment was received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2020-0020.''
II. Tires Involved
Approximately 175 Hankook Dynapro MT2 tires, size LT215/85R16,
manufactured between October 20, 2019, and November 30, 2019, are
potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance
Hankook explains that the noncompliance is that the subject tires
were marked with the incorrect number of nylon plies in the tread; and,
therefore, do not meet the requirements of paragraph S5.5(f) of FMVSS
No. 139. Specifically, the tires were marked ``TREAD 2 STEEL + 2
POLYESTER + 1 NYLON; SIDEWALL 2 POLYESTER'', when they should have been
marked ``TREAD 2 STEEL + 2 POLYESTER + 2 NYLON; SIDEWALL 2 POLYESTER.''
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S5.5(f) of FMVSS No. 139, includes the requirements
relevant to this petition. Each tire must be marked on one sidewall
with the actual number of plies in the sidewall and the actual number
of plies in the tread area, if different, as specified in paragraph
S5.5(f).
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 and do not reflect the views of the Agency. In its petition,
Hankook describes the subject noncompliance and contends that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, Hankook offers the following reasoning:
1. The incorrect ply labeling information does not affect the
operational safety of vehicles on which the tires are mounted.
2. The tires meet or exceed the performance requirements of FMVSS
No. 139, and they otherwise comply with the labeling and performance
requirements of FMVSS No. 139.
3. Hankook is not aware of any warranty claims, field reports,
customer complaints, or any incidents, accidents, or injuries related
to the subject condition.
4. Hankook cites the Transportation Recall, Enhancement,
Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act (Pub. L. 106-414) and
several of NHTSA's past grant notices of petitions for decisions of
inconsequential noncompliance concerning the mislabeling of ply
information and contend those are similar to the subject petition.
Hankook states that NHTSA has routinely concluded the number of
[[Page 3379]]
plies is inconsequential to vehicle safety. Hankook believes the same
reasoning applies to the subject tires and that mislabeling the number
of nylon plies does not affect the operational safety of the vehicles.
Further, Hankook states, the subject tires correctly label the number
of steel plies, alleviating the safety concern for the tire retread,
repair, and recycling industries.''
Hankook argues 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.
Hankook's complete petition and all supporting documents are
available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)
website at: https://www.regulations.gov and by following the online
search instructions to locate the docket number as listed in the title
of this notice.
VI. Public Comment
NHTSA received one comment from the general public regarding
Hankook's petition from Mr. Bruce Grim.\1\ Mr. Grim stated that
although mislabeling a tire sidewall may seem inconsequential, for some
in the industry it is still an important aspect of safety for
consumers. He suggested that the public is not sufficiently notified at
the point of sale of the potential perils or hazards due to the subject
noncompliance. Mr. Grim also states that in the event of a recall, it
is important that retailers and consumers can identify the subject
tires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2020-0020-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. NHTSA's Analysis
A. General Principles
An important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality is
the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise protect.\2\ In general, NHTSA does not
consider the absence of complaints or injuries to show that the issue
is inconsequential to safety. ``Most importantly, the absence of a
complaint does not mean there have not been any safety issues, nor does
it mean that there will not be safety issues in the future.'' \3\
``[T]he fact that in past reported cases good luck and swift reaction
have prevented many serious injuries does not mean that good luck will
continue to work.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
\4\ 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 have also not justified granting an
inconsequentiality petition.\5\ Similarly, NHTSA has rejected petitions
based on the assertion that only a small percentage of vehicles or
items of equipment are likely to actually exhibit a noncompliance. The
percentage of potential occupants that could be adversely affected by a
noncompliance does not determine the question of inconsequentiality.
Rather, the issue to consider is the consequence to an occupant who is
exposed to the consequence of that noncompliance.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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).
\6\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. NHTSA's Response to Hankook's Petition
NHTSA has evaluated the merits of the inconsequential noncompliance
petition submitted by the petitioner and agrees that, based on the
facts presented, this specific noncompliance of the subject tires is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The Agency considered the
following prior to making this determination:
1. Operational Safety & Performance: NHTSA agrees that in this
case, the incorrect number of nylon plies labeled on the tire has no
effect on the operational safety of vehicles when the affected tires
meet the other performance and labeling requirements of the applicable
FMVSS.
2. Tire Identification and Traceability: The tires have the
required information per 49 CFR 574.5 to ensure that the tires may be
properly registered for the purposes of a safety recall. The entire
TIN, including the plant code and manufacturing date is both legible
and easily discernible.
3. Downstream Operations: The Agency must also consider other
stakeholders, in addition to the manufacturer and end-user. Downstream
entities involved in tire repair, retreading, and recycling operations
require certain information to determine if tires may be safely used in
their operations. The existence of steel in a tire's sidewall and tread
can be relevant to the manner in which it should be repaired or
retreaded. The use of steel cord construction in the sidewall and tread
is the primary safety concern of these industries. The Agency believes
the noncompliance of the subject tires will have no measurable effect
on the safety of the tire retread, repair, and recycling industries
since the tire sidewalls are marked correctly for the number of steel
plies.
4. Consumer Feedback and Focus Groups: The Agency has concluded,
based on previous feedback, that the tire construction information,
specifically the number of plies and cord material in the sidewall and
tread plies, influences very few consumers when they are deciding to
buy a motor vehicle or replacement tires. This conclusion is based on
information gathered from the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) that was published in the Federal Register on December 1, 2000,
(65 FR 75222).
5. Public Comments: In response to Mr. Grim's comments, the Agency
agrees that the safety of the end-users is a priority and has taken
that into consideration when analyzing this petition. Furthermore, the
Agency agrees that the user's ability to identify a tire in the event
of a recall is important and finds nothing in the facts of this
petition that would impede tire identification of the subject tires in
the event of a recall.
In summary, the Agency believes that the specific incorrect
labeling of the tire construction information present in this instance
will have an inconsequential effect on motor vehicle safety or any
related downstream tire repair, retread, or recycling operations.
[[Page 3380]]
VIII. NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that Hankook has met
its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 139 noncompliance
in the affected tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Hankook's petition is hereby granted and Hankook 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 Hankook no longer controlled at
the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of 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. 2022-01133 Filed 1-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
