Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Pirelli Tire, LLC, Denial of Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 75690-75694 [2022-26769]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
75690
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 236 / Friday, December 9, 2022 / Notices
Submit comments on or before
January 9, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by DOT Docket Number
MARAD–2022–0254 by any of the
following methods:
• On-line via the Federal Electronic
Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Search using ‘‘MARAD–2022–0254’’
and follow the instructions for
submitting comments.
• Mail/Hand-Delivery/Courier:
Docket Management Facility; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590. Submit
comments in an unbound format, no
larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing.
Reference Materials and Docket
Information: You may view the
complete application, including the
aquaculture support technical service
requirements, and all public comments
at the DOT Docket on-line via https://
www.regulations.gov. Search using
‘‘MARAD–2022–0254.’’ All comments
received will be posted without change
to the docket, including any personal
information provided. The Docket
Management Facility is open 9:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except on Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Meurer, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Maritime
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Room W23–436,
Washington, DC 20590. Email:
Jennifer.Meurer@dot.gov. Phone: 202–
366–4946.
If you have questions on viewing the
Docket, call Docket Operations,
telephone: (800) 647–5527.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to 46 CFR 106.115, vessel owners,
operators, or charterers of U.S.
documented vessels with registry
endorsements or foreign flag vessels are
required to provide prior notification to
the United States Coast Guard (USCG) of
aquaculture support operations in U.S.
waters. The notification, in part, must
include a copy of a MARAD-issued
Aquaculture Support Operations
Waiver. Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12102(d),
the Secretary of Transportation has the
authority to issue Aquaculture Support
Operations Waivers to U.S. documented
vessels with registry endorsements or
foreign flag vessels engaged in
operations that treat aquaculture fish or
protect aquaculture fish from disease,
parasitic infestation, or other threats to
their health after a finding that suitable
vessels of the United States are not
available that could perform those
operations. The Secretary has delegated
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:50 Dec 08, 2022
Jkt 259001
this authority to the Maritime
Administrator.
MARAD has received an Aquaculture
Support Operations Waiver request from
Cooke Aquaculture USA, Inc. (Cooke)
for the operations of the Canadian-flag
vessels COLBY PERCE, RONJA
CARRIER, SADIE JANE, MISS
MILDRED 1, KC COMMANDER. Cooke
proposes, in part, ‘‘to use highlyspecialized foreign-flag vessels referred
to as a ‘‘wellboat’’ (or ‘‘live fish carrier’’)
to treat Cooke’s swimming inventory of
farmed Atlantic salmon in the
company’s salt-water grow-out pens off
Maine’s North Atlantic Coast. This
treatment prevents against parasitic
infestation by sea lice that is highly
destructive to the salmon’s health.’’
Cooke proposes to operate the vessels
off Maine’s North Atlantic Coast during
the 2023 calendar year, from January 1
to December 31, 2023. Further details of
Cooke’s proposed operations may be
found in the waiver request posted in
the docket.
The public may submit comments
providing detailed information relating
to the availability of U.S.-flag vessels to
perform the proposed aquaculture
support operations set forth in Cooke’s
waiver request. Comments should
reference the docket number of this
notice, the vessel names, the
commenter’s interest in the application,
and address whether there are suitable
U.S. vessels available to conduct the
proposed aquaculture support
operations.
Privacy Act
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c),
MARAD solicits comments from the
public to inform its decision
determining the availability of suitable
U.S.-flag vessels to conduct the
aquaculture support operations
proposed in this notice. All timely
comments will be considered; however,
to facilitate comment tracking,
commenters should provide their name
or the name of their organization. If
comments contain proprietary or
confidential information, commenters
may contact the agency for alternate
submission instructions. Anyone can
search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our
dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the
comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
For information on DOT’s compliance
with the Privacy Act, please visit
https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.
(Authority: 49 CFR 1.93(w))
*
PO 00000
*
*
Frm 00105
*
Fmt 4703
*
Sfmt 4703
By order of the Maritime Administrator.
T. Mitchell Hudson, Jr.,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. 2022–26821 Filed 12–8–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–81–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2019–0038; Notice 2]
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Pirelli
Tire, LLC, Denial of Petitions for
Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petitions.
AGENCY:
Daimler AG (DAG) and
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA)
collectively referred to as ‘‘DAGMercedes-Benz,’’ and Pirelli Tire, LLC
(Pirelli), have determined that certain
Pirelli P7 Cinturato RUN FLAT radial
tires that were installed as original
equipment in certain model year (MY)
2018–2019 Mercedes-Benz motor
vehicles and also sold as replacement
equipment do not fully comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic
Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Pirelli
filed a noncompliance report dated
February 25, 2019, and later amended it
on March 15, 2019, and DAG-MercedesBenz filed a noncompliance report
dated March 4, 2019. Pirelli
subsequently petitioned NHTSA (the
‘‘Agency’’) on March 18, 2019, and
DAG-Mercedes-Benz petitioned NHTSA
on March 27, 2019, for a decision that
the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety. This notice announces
and explains the denial of DAGMercedes-Benz’s and Pirelli’s petitions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jayton Lindley, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, NHTSA, (325) 655–0547,
Jayton.Lindley@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Overview
DAG-Mercedes-Benz and Pirelli (the
‘‘petitioners’’) have determined that
certain Pirelli P7 Cinturato RUN FLAT
radial tires that were installed as
original equipment in certain MY 2018–
2019 Mercedes-Benz motor vehicles and
also sold as replacement equipment do
not fully comply with paragraph S5.5(c)
of FMVSS No. 139, New Pneumatic
Radial Tires for Light Vehicles (49 CFR
571.139).
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 236 / Friday, December 9, 2022 / Notices
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Pirelli filed a noncompliance report
dated February 25, 2019, and later
amended the report on March 15, 2019,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports. Pirelli subsequently petitioned
NHTSA, on March 18, 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 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and
49 CFR part 556, Exemption for
Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
DAG-Mercedes-Benz filed a
noncompliance report dated March 4,
2019, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports, and
subsequently petitioned NHTSA, on
March 27, 2019,1 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 the petitioners’
petitions was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on May 19,
2020, in the Federal Register (85 FR
30014). One comment was received. To
view the petitions, all supporting
documents, and the comment from the
public, log onto the Federal Docket
Management System’s website at
https://www.regulations.gov/, and then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2019–
0038.’’
II. Vehicles and Tires Involved
Approximately 2,023 Pirelli P7
Cinturato RUN FLAT replacement radial
tires, size 245/45R18 100 Y (the ‘‘subject
tires’’), manufactured between April 3,
2017, and February 15, 2019, are
potentially involved.
The subject tires were installed as
original equipment on approximately
206 of the following MY 2018–2019
Mercedes-Benz motor vehicles,
manufactured between May 4, 2017, and
February 7, 2019:
• 2018 Mercedes-Benz E400 4MATIC
Cabriolet
• 2018 Mercedes-Benz E400 Coupe
• 2018 Mercedes-Benz E400 Cabriolet
• 2019 Mercedes-Benz E450 4MATIC
Cabriolet
• 2019 Mercedes-Benz E450 Cabriolet
• 2019 Mercedes-Benz E450 Coupe
1 NHTSA notes that DAG-Mercedes-Benz’s
petition was incorrectly dated March 27, 2018.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:50 Dec 08, 2022
Jkt 259001
• 2019 Mercedes-Benz E450 4MATIC
Coupe
III. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S5.5(c) of FMVSS No. 139,
includes the requirements relevant to
the petitions. Each tire must be marked
on each sidewall with the maximum
permissible inflation pressure, and in
the case of the subject tires, the
maximum permissible inflation pressure
must be followed in parenthesis by the
equivalent load rating in pounds,
rounded to the nearest whole number.
IV. Noncompliance
The petitioners explain that the
noncompliance is that the subject tires,
manufactured by Pirelli and sold as
replacement equipment, as well as sold
by DAG-Mercedes-Benz as original
equipment on certain MY 2018–2019
Mercedes-Benz motor vehicles, were
erroneously marked with the incorrect
maximum permissible inflation
pressure. Therefore, the tires do not
meet the requirements of paragraph
S5.5(c) of FMVSS No. 139. Specifically,
the subject tires are marked with a
maximum permissible inflation pressure
of 340 kPa, when they should have been
marked with the maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 350 kPa.
V. Summary of Petitions
The following views and arguments
presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary
of Petitions,’’ are the views and
arguments provided by the petitioners.
They do not reflect the views of the
Agency. The petitioners described the
subject noncompliance and stated their
belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
On January 15, 2019, DAG-MercedesBenz received preliminary information
from the Korea Automobile Testing &
Research Institute (KATRI), which
indicated that when KATRI tested the
subject tires installed on a DAGMercedes-Benz vehicle, using the test
specifications applicable for 340 kPa
(the maximum permissible tire pressure
that was indicated on the sidewall of the
tire) the tire reportedly failed the
strength test.2 DAG-Mercedes-Benz
relayed information about KATRI’s test
to Pirelli Deutschland GMBH, who
informed Pirelli about this issue. Pirelli
subsequently concluded that the subject
tires were erroneously marked with a
2 The test was conducted according to the
applicable Korean standard. DAG-Mercedes-Benz
stated that the applicable Korean standard is
equivalent to FMVSS No. 139 in all material
respects.
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75691
maximum permissible inflation pressure
of 340 kPa.
In support of their petitions, Pirelli
and DAG-Mercedes-Benz submitted the
following reasoning:
1. The petitioners cited the following
noncompliance petitions that the
Agency has granted previously:
a. DAG-Mercedes-Benz cited
Continental Tire the America, LLC,
Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance. See 83
FR 36668, July 30, 2018.
b. Pirelli cited Tireco Inc., Grant of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance. See 76 FR 66353,
October 26, 2011.
c. The petitioners cited Michelin
North America, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance. See 74 FR 10805,
March 12, 2009.
Pirelli highlighted that in the
Michelin case, the tire was marked on
one sidewall as having a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of ‘‘300
kPa,’’ while the other sidewall was
marked ‘‘350 kPa.’’ In concluding that
this noncompliance was
inconsequential to safety, NHTSA cited
the following justifications:
‘‘Since the load that is marked on both
sides of the tire (i.e., 750 KG (1653 lb.)) is
correct; the recommended inflation pressure
(240 kPa (35 PSI)) is well below both the
correct tire pressure of 300 kPa (44 PSI), and
the incorrectly labeled tire pressure of 350
kPa (51 PSI); and, in any event, the tire was
manufactured to safely accommodate a
pressure of 350 kPa (51 PSI), the tire cannot
be inadvertently overloaded.’’
2. DAG-Mercedes-Benz stated that the
subject tires meet or exceed all
performance and safety requirements for
tires with a maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 350 kPa, and the
mislabeling has no effect whatsoever on
their safety or performance. DAGMercedes-Benz asserted the following:
a. The subject tires were designed and
engineered as tires with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 350
kPa, and they meet or exceed all of the
performance requirements for such tires.
Specifically, the tires meet the
applicable specifications contained in
FMVSS No. 139 for tire dimensions
under paragraph S6.1, the high-speed
performance test under paragraph S6.2,
the tire endurance test under paragraph
S6.3, the low inflation pressure test
under paragraph S6.4, and the bead
unseating test applicable under
paragraph S6.6 (which references
FMVSS No. 109, paragraph S5.2). These
tires also meet the tire strength test
specified for tires with a maximum
inflation pressure of 350 kPa, in
accordance with paragraph S6.5 of
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
75692
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 236 / Friday, December 9, 2022 / Notices
FMVSS No. 139 (which references
FMVSS No. 109, paragraph S5.3).
b. Since the subject tires were labeled
as having a maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 340 kPa rather than
350 kPa, the tires would be subject to a
different strength test specification
under FMVSS No. 139 (which
references FMVSS No. 109, paragraph
S5.3), which they were not meant to
satisfy.
c. The mislabeling of the subject tires
has no effect on vehicle safety as
compared to tires that are properly and
correctly labeled with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 350
kPa. The error does not present any risk
of over-inflation since the design
maximum permissible inflation pressure
of 350 kPa is higher than the labeled
inflation pressure of 340 kPa.
Additionally, there is no risk of tire
under inflation, since the calculated
load-carrying capacity of the tire at 340
kPa is met and exceeded by the design
for 350 kPa.
d. All of the tire load-carrying
information labeled on the subject tires
is correct and, in fact, that information
understates the load-carrying capacity of
the tires. Since the tires were designed
to have a maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 350 kPa, according
to the European Tyre and Rim Technical
Organization (ETRTO) guidelines, these
tires have a load-carrying capacity that
is higher by 15 to 20 kg.
e. The mislabeling does not cause any
safety problems, such as increasing the
probability of tire failure, if the tires
were inflated to 350 kPa under a load
of 750kg, and it is not likely to result in
unsafe use of the tires. In a similar case,
NHTSA granted an inconsequentiality
petition with respect to two tires, one of
which was mislabeled as having a
maximum permissible inflation pressure
of 350 kPa instead of 300 kPa, and the
other tire was mislabeled as having a
maximum permissible inflation pressure
of 300 kPa instead of 350 kPa.3 As
NHTSA has acknowledged, ‘‘the choice
of the maximum inflation pressure level
then becomes the choice of the tire
manufacturer, as long as it is in
compliance with the established values
under FMVSS No. 139 paragraph
S5.5.4.’’ 4 Both 340 and 350 maximum
inflation pressure levels are acceptable
choices for this tire under paragraph
S5.5.4.
f. NHTSA has previously stated that it
has retained the requirement that tires
3 See Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, Grant
of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance; 80 FR 31092, June 1, 2015.
4 See Michelin North America, Grant of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 74
FR 10805, March 12, 2009.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:50 Dec 08, 2022
Jkt 259001
be marked with the maximum
permissible inflation pressure only ‘‘as
an aid in preventing over-inflation,’’ for
which there is no risk in this case.5
3. Pirelli stated that the different tire
strength test criteria for tires marked
with a maximum permissible inflation
pressure of 340 kPa vs. 350 kPa do not
have any real-world safety relevance in
this case.
a. Since these tires are labeled as
having a maximum permissible inflation
pressure of 340 kPa rather than 350 kPa,
the tires would be subject to a different
strength test criteria under FMVSS No.
109/139, which they were not meant to
satisfy. Due to this labeling error, the
appropriate specification to be applied
should be that which is applicable to
the tire as designed, with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 350
kPa.
b. FMVSS No. 139, paragraph S6.5
incorporates the tire strength test
requirements of FMVSS No. 109,
paragraph S5.3. Specifically, under the
tire strength test in paragraph S5.3 of
FMVSS No. 109 (which is crossreferenced in paragraph S6.5 of FMVSS
No. 139), tires with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 350
kPa should be tested at 180 kPa, while
tires with a maximum pressure of 340
kPa should be tested at 220 kPa.6 When
tested at these pressures using the test
procedures specified in FMVSS No. 109,
a tire with a maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 350 kPa must have
a minimum breaking energy of 294
joules, while a tire with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 340
kPa must have a minimum breaking
energy of 588 joules. The subject tires
have shown a breaking energy of 455
joules, which far exceeds the
requirements for tires marked with a
maximum permissible inflation pressure
of 350 kPa (i.e., 54.7% above the
required threshold).
c. The subject tires were developed
for a specific DAG-Mercedes-Benz
application and, accordingly, they were
subject to and fulfilled a very stringent
DAG-Mercedes-Benz homologation
process, including all customer
requirements related to performance,
quality and safety standards.
d. With specific reference to the DAGMercedes-Benz applications, the table
5 See Michelin North America, Inc., Grant of
Application for Decision that Noncompliance is
Inconsequential to Motor Vehicle Safety; 70 FR
10161, March 2, 2005 (concluding that ‘‘the
mislabeling issue, in this case, will in no way
contribute to the risk of over-inflation because the
value actually marked is lower than the value
required by the regulations’’).
6 See FMVSS No. 109 New pneumatic and certain
specialty tires; Table II.
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
below shows the following information
for each of the vehicles for which the
tires were fitted as original equipment:
• a summary of vehicle weights under
‘‘Normal Load’’ and ‘‘Maximum Load’’
operating conditions;
• the recommended tire inflation
pressures for ‘‘Normal Load’’ and
‘‘Maximum Load’’ operating conditions
reported on each vehicle’s placard;
• minimum inflation pressures
corresponding to each vehicle’s load
condition according to the Tire and Rim
Association standard; and
• the minimum inflation pressures
corresponding to each load condition
according to the ETRTO standard (as
shown at page 8 of Pirelli’s petition 7).
e. Either considering the Tire and Rim
Association or the ETRTO standard for
the maximum tire load-carrying
capacity calculation, a tire with a load
index of 96 ‘‘Standard Load’’ would be
an appropriate fitment for each of the
identified vehicles and would be more
than sufficient to carry the vehicles’
load both under ‘‘Normal Load’’ and
‘‘Maximum Load’’ conditions. In other
words, under the above-reported
operating conditions, an ‘‘Extra Load’’
tire with a load index of 100 is not
necessary to carry the vehicles’ loads.
f. Considering a tire with a load index
of 96 ‘‘Standard Load,’’ and marked
with a maximum permissible inflation
pressure of 350 kPa, based on the above
consideration, for each of the abovementioned vehicles, the referenced
strength test limit, and testing
conditions are sufficient to achieve all
strength test-related standards.
g. The subject tires are self-supporting
‘‘run flat’’ tires designed with a
reinforcing element in the sidewall that
carries the vehicle load under zero (0)
kPa inflation pressure operating
conditions, thereby avoiding the
complete deflection of the tire sidewall
which may lead to the tire rim roll-off.
Thus, even in the event of a failure of
the type that the tire strength test was
originally intended to address (i.e., road
hazards), the subject tires’ run flat
design enables the vehicle to maintain
stability, drivability, and control.
Accordingly, there are no safety
consequences in the event of such a
failure.
h. The safety of the subject tires has
been confirmed through rigorous testing
under different testing methods focused
to measure resistance to accidental
impact damage and tire durability.
Neither petitioner is aware of any
warranty claims, field reports, customer
complaints, legal claims, or any
7 The petition is available in the docket at
NHTSA–2019–0038–0001.
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 236 / Friday, December 9, 2022 / Notices
incidents or injuries related to the
original or the replacement tires.
VI. Public Comment
NHTSA received one comment from
the public.8 The commenter posted
anonymously in opposition to NHTSA
granting the subject petitions. The
commenter argued that if the
petitioners’ petitions were to be granted,
it would protect the manufacturers
rather than consumers. The commenter
further asserted that most vehicle
owners do not know how to properly
check and maintain the air pressure in
their tires or understand how damaging
and dangerous under-inflated tires have
the potential to be.
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.9 NHTSA also 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.’’ 10 ‘‘[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.’’ 11
B. NHTSA’s Response to the Petitioners’
Petitions
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
NHTSA considered several factors
specific to these petitions and disagrees
that mismarking the maximum
permissible inflation pressure is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
8 See https://www.regulations.gov/comment/
NHTSA-2019-0038-0004.
9 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).
10 Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81
FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
11 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’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:50 Dec 08, 2022
Jkt 259001
Because the subject tires were marked
with a maximum permissible inflation
pressure of 340 kPa, these tires are
required to meet the strength test
conditions specified under paragraph
S6.5, Tire Strength, of FMVSS No. 139,
which points to the requirements
documented in paragraph S5.3 of
FMVSS No. 109. Based on Pirelli’s
testing and the sidewall picture Pirelli
submitted to the Agency on July 11,
2019, the tire failed to meet the
applicable requirement since it did not
reach the minimum energy levels
specified in the FMVSS standard.
Specifically, a tire labeled with a
maximum permissible inflation pressure
of 340 kPa must meet or exceed a
strength test requirement of 588 joules.
Based on the information provided by
Pirelli, the subject tires obtained energy
levels up to 486.4 joules, which is
significantly below the minimum
requirement of 588 joules. NHTSA’s
regulations have different energy level
requirements because a tire with a
maximum permissible inflation pressure
of 340 kPa is an ‘‘Extra Load’’ tire,
whereas a tire with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 350
kPa is a ‘‘Standard Load’’ tire.
Furthermore, based on the picture and
information Pirelli provided to the
Agency on July 11, 2019,12 NHTSA does
not believe that the only incorrect
marking on the tire was the labeling of
a maximum permissible inflation
pressure of 340 kPa, as Pirelli described
in its petition. The tire was also
incorrectly marked as an ‘‘Extra Load’’
tire and the maximum load marked on
the subject tires is 800 kg (1764 lbs.).
This information correlates to a tire
designed and manufactured as a tire
having an inflation pressure of 340 kPa
according to the 2019 edition of the Tire
and Rim Association Year Book.13
Therefore, the tire appears to be marked
in multiple ways that would indicate to
users that it is an ‘‘Extra Load’’ tire.
Tires labeled with either a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 340
kPa or 350 kPa are both acceptable
choices under FMVSS No. 139, S5.5.4.
However, the 340 kPa labeling indicates
that a tire can support a load that is 199
lbs. per tire more than a tire marked
with a maximum permissible inflation
pressure of 350 kPa. Because the subject
tires were engineered and manufactured
to support the maximum load carrying
capacity for a tire marked with a
maximum permissible inflation pressure
12 https://www.regulations.gov/document/
NHTSA-2019-0038-0005.
13 According to the Tire and Rim Association
Year Book, 2019 edition, the maximum loading
capacity for a tire marked 350 kPa is 710 kg (1565
lbs).
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75693
of 350 kPa, labeling the subject tires
with an inflation pressure of 340 kPa
creates the risk that the tires will be
overloaded. For example, a consumer
relying on the incorrect labeling may
believe an overload condition of as
much as 796 lbs. is safe—even though
that overload poses a risk to motor
vehicle safety.
The Michelin petition 14 for
inconsequential noncompliance cited by
the petitioners does not support the
petitioners’ claims. In the Michelin case,
the Agency concluded that the incorrect
labeling on the tire would not lead to
the tire being inadvertently overloaded
since the load on both sidewalls of the
tire understates its capability. In
contrast, the petitioners’ petitions
concern tires that were marked with
information that would likely result in
misuse of the tires, including the risk of
overloading the tires. Overloading can
lead to tire failure and resulting loss of
vehicle control, increasing the risk of a
crash.
The Continental Tire the Americas,
LLC’s petition for inconsequential
noncompliance,15 which the petitioners
cited does not support the petitioners’
claims. In that petition, the tires in
question were labeled with both 300 kPa
and 350 kPa. Tires having both of these
labels are tested using the same test
inflation pressures and must comply
with the same energy levels since both
pressures are in reference to a ‘‘Standard
Load’’ tire. In the petitioners’ case, the
tires are marked as ‘‘Extra Load’’ tires
instead of ‘‘Standard Load’’ tires—thus
distinguishing the petitioners’ labeling
error from the Continental Tire the
Americas, LLC’s petition.
In the Tireco Inc. petition 16 the
maximum permissible inflation
pressures in kPa and PSI were reversed
(i.e., the kPa number was labeled as PSI
and the PSI number was labeled as kPa).
The Agency concluded the incorrect
labeling of the tire inflation information
will not have any consequential effect
on motor vehicle safety because it is
unlikely a vehicle owner would inflate
the tires to the incorrectly labeled
pressure because it was so obviously
incorrect. Whereas, with respect to the
petitioners’ error, the incorrect markings
on the subject tires are not obviously
incorrect, and therefore, are likely to be
14 See Michelin North America, Grant of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 74
FR 10805, March 12, 2009.
15 See Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, Grant
of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 83 FR 36668, July 30, 2018.
16 See Tireco, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 76 FR 66353,
October 26, 2011.
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
75694
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 236 / Friday, December 9, 2022 / Notices
relied upon by vehicle owners in a way
that poses a risk to motor vehicle safety.
The petitioners state that they do not
foresee any safety issues due to
consumers over-inflating the tires since
a maximum permissible inflation
pressure of 350 kPa is a higher pressure
than the 340 kPa that is erroneously
labeled on the subject tires—since the
tires were engineered to sustain the
higher of the two inflation pressures.
NHTSA agrees with the petitioners on
this one limited point; however,
agreement on this one limited point
does not affect NHTSA’s ultimate
decision to deny the petitions.
According to the Tire and Rim
Association Year Book (2019), a tire for
this size designation should have a load
index of 96. The words ‘‘Extra Load’’
emphasizes that the tire has been
marked or labeled with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 340
kPa which corresponds to a load index
of 100. Based on the sidewall pictures,
the subject tires were also mistakenly
labeled with a load index of 100, which
pertains to an ‘‘Extra Load’’ tire or a tire
with a maximum permissible inflation
pressure of 340 kPa. For these reasons,
the Agency believes that the tire was not
correctly marked with respect to the
load index labeling information and,
therefore, misleads the public and
vehicle owners as to the appropriate
usage of the tire.
Even though the subject tires meet
rigorous testing under the FMVSS and
other methods employed by DAGMercedes-Benz, like the curb test,
maximum pressure resistance (static
blow out test), rim roll-off test, fatigue
test, run-flat mileage test, rapid loss of
inflation and lane change test, integrity
tests, etc., that does not negate the fact
that these tires must also meet the
strength test according to FMVSS No.
139, section S6.5.1, Tire Strength Test
for Passenger Car Tires. Furthermore,
Pirelli seems to recognize that the
subject tires fail to meet the minimum
requirements under the FMVSS for a
tire labeled with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 340
kPa.
Finally, for a tire with a load index of
100, the energy level—as referenced in
FMVSS No. 109—is 588 joules on Table
I–C Radial Ply Tires for ‘‘Extra Load’’
tires. The subject tires failed to meet this
required energy level, pursuant to
FMVSS No. 139/FMVSS No. 109.
For the above-stated reasons, the
Agency finds that the subject
noncompliance is consequential to
motor vehicle safety.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:50 Dec 08, 2022
Jkt 259001
VIII. NHTSA’s Decision
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA has determined that DAGMercedes-Benz and Pirelli have not met
their burden of persuasion that the
subject FMVSS No. 139 noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, DAG-MercedesBenz’s and Pirelli’s petitions are hereby
denied, and DAG-Mercedes-Benz and
Pirelli are consequently obligated to
provide notification of and free remedy
for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8.)
Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022–26769 Filed 12–8–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA–2021–0109; Notice No.
2022–13]
Hazardous Materials: Frequently
Asked Questions—Applicability of the
Hazardous Material Regulations
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), Department of Transportation
(DOT).
ACTION: Notice; response to comments
and publication of finalized FAQ.
AGENCY:
On March 22, 2022, PHMSA
announced an initiative to convert
historical letters of interpretation (LOI)
applicable to the Hazardous Materials
Regulations that have been issued to
specific stakeholders into broadly
applicable frequently asked questions
(FAQ). As such, PHMSA requested
comment on the initiative and for input
on the prioritization of future sets of
FAQ. During the initial comment
period, several commenters requested
that PHMSA further clarify the future
disposition of the LOI process and
address commenters’ initial concerns. In
response to this feedback, PHMSA
published a second notice on June 13,
2022, extending the comment period to
July 22, 2022, and announcing that a
webinar would be held on June 27,
2022. In this final notice, PHMSA is
responding to comments received from
stakeholders, summarizing the webinar
event, finalizing the first set of FAQ,
and announcing the topic for future
FAQ.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Arthur Pollack, Standards and
Rulemaking Division, (202) 366–8553,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The March 22, 2022,1 notice
announced an initiative to convert
historical LOI applicable to the
Hazardous Materials Regulations
(HMR) 2 that have been issued to
specific stakeholders into broadly
applicable FAQ to facilitate better
public understanding and awareness of
the HMR. PHMSA also requested
comment on the initiative and solicited
input on the prioritization of future sets
of FAQ. FAQ are not substantive rules,
themselves, and do not create legally
enforceable rights, assign duties, or
impose new obligations not otherwise
contained in the existing regulations
and standards. Instead, the FAQ are
intended as an aid to demonstrate
compliance with the relevant
regulations.
The comment period for the March
22, 2022, notice closed on May 23, 2022;
however, on June 13, 2022, PHMSA
published a second notice extending the
comment period until July 22, 2022, and
announcing a public webinar to clarify
the FAQ initiative and address concerns
expressed by commenters that PHMSA
may eliminate the LOI process.
II. Purpose of the FAQ Initiative
This initiative will provide additional
value to PHMSA’s Online Code of
Federal Regulations (oCFR) tool.3 The
oCFR tool is an interactive web-based
application that allows users to navigate
with a single click between all content,
including LOI, connected to an HMR
citation. The oCFR tool includes the
ability to sort, filter, and export search
results. Upon completion of this
initiative, PHMSA’s Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety (OHMS) will be able to
achieve efficiencies for other more
complex or novel requests for LOI and
devote resources to other hazardous
materials transportation safety projects.
1 Hazardous Materials: Frequently Asked
Questions—Applicability of the Hazardous Material
Regulations, 87 FR 16308 (March 22, 2022),
available at, https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2022/03/22/2022-05958/hazardousmaterials-frequently-asked-questions-applicabilityof-the-hazardous-material-regulations; PHMSA–
2021–0109–0001.
2 49 CFR parts 171–180.
3 The oCFR tool is available at. https://
www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/
hazmat/phmsas-online-cfr-ocfr.
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 236 (Friday, December 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75690-75694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26769]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0038; Notice 2]
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Pirelli Tire, LLC, Denial of Petitions
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Daimler AG (DAG) and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA)
collectively referred to as ``DAG-Mercedes-Benz,'' and Pirelli Tire,
LLC (Pirelli), have determined that certain Pirelli P7 Cinturato RUN
FLAT radial tires that were installed as original equipment in certain
model year (MY) 2018-2019 Mercedes-Benz motor vehicles and also sold as
replacement equipment do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light
Vehicles. Pirelli filed a noncompliance report dated February 25, 2019,
and later amended it on March 15, 2019, and DAG-Mercedes-Benz filed a
noncompliance report dated March 4, 2019. Pirelli subsequently
petitioned NHTSA (the ``Agency'') on March 18, 2019, and DAG-Mercedes-
Benz petitioned NHTSA on March 27, 2019, for a decision that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety. This notice announces and explains the denial of DAG-Mercedes-
Benz's and Pirelli's petitions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayton Lindley, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA, (325) 655-0547, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
DAG-Mercedes-Benz and Pirelli (the ``petitioners'') have determined
that certain Pirelli P7 Cinturato RUN FLAT radial tires that were
installed as original equipment in certain MY 2018-2019 Mercedes-Benz
motor vehicles and also sold as replacement equipment do not fully
comply with paragraph S5.5(c) of FMVSS No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial
Tires for Light Vehicles (49 CFR 571.139).
[[Page 75691]]
Pirelli filed a noncompliance report dated February 25, 2019, and
later amended the report on March 15, 2019, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Pirelli
subsequently petitioned NHTSA, on March 18, 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 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and
49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
DAG-Mercedes-Benz filed a noncompliance report dated March 4, 2019,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA, on March 27, 2019,\1\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHTSA notes that DAG-Mercedes-Benz's petition was
incorrectly dated March 27, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of receipt of the petitioners' petitions was published with
a 30-day public comment period, on May 19, 2020, in the Federal
Register (85 FR 30014). One comment was received. To view the
petitions, all supporting documents, and the comment from the public,
log onto the Federal Docket Management System's website at https://www.regulations.gov/, and then follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ``NHTSA-2019-0038.''
II. Vehicles and Tires Involved
Approximately 2,023 Pirelli P7 Cinturato RUN FLAT replacement
radial tires, size 245/45R18 100 Y (the ``subject tires''),
manufactured between April 3, 2017, and February 15, 2019, are
potentially involved.
The subject tires were installed as original equipment on
approximately 206 of the following MY 2018-2019 Mercedes-Benz motor
vehicles, manufactured between May 4, 2017, and February 7, 2019:
2018 Mercedes-Benz E400 4MATIC Cabriolet
2018 Mercedes-Benz E400 Coupe
2018 Mercedes-Benz E400 Cabriolet
2019 Mercedes-Benz E450 4MATIC Cabriolet
2019 Mercedes-Benz E450 Cabriolet
2019 Mercedes-Benz E450 Coupe
2019 Mercedes-Benz E450 4MATIC Coupe
III. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S5.5(c) of FMVSS No. 139, includes the requirements
relevant to the petitions. Each tire must be marked on each sidewall
with the maximum permissible inflation pressure, and in the case of the
subject tires, the maximum permissible inflation pressure must be
followed in parenthesis by the equivalent load rating in pounds,
rounded to the nearest whole number.
IV. Noncompliance
The petitioners explain that the noncompliance is that the subject
tires, manufactured by Pirelli and sold as replacement equipment, as
well as sold by DAG-Mercedes-Benz as original equipment on certain MY
2018-2019 Mercedes-Benz motor vehicles, were erroneously marked with
the incorrect maximum permissible inflation pressure. Therefore, the
tires do not meet the requirements of paragraph S5.5(c) of FMVSS No.
139. Specifically, the subject tires are marked with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 340 kPa, when they should have been
marked with the maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa.
V. Summary of Petitions
The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Petitions,'' are the views and arguments provided by the
petitioners. They do not reflect the views of the Agency. The
petitioners described the subject noncompliance and stated their belief
that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
On January 15, 2019, DAG-Mercedes-Benz received preliminary
information from the Korea Automobile Testing & Research Institute
(KATRI), which indicated that when KATRI tested the subject tires
installed on a DAG-Mercedes-Benz vehicle, using the test specifications
applicable for 340 kPa (the maximum permissible tire pressure that was
indicated on the sidewall of the tire) the tire reportedly failed the
strength test.\2\ DAG-Mercedes-Benz relayed information about KATRI's
test to Pirelli Deutschland GMBH, who informed Pirelli about this
issue. Pirelli subsequently concluded that the subject tires were
erroneously marked with a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 340
kPa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The test was conducted according to the applicable Korean
standard. DAG-Mercedes-Benz stated that the applicable Korean
standard is equivalent to FMVSS No. 139 in all material respects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In support of their petitions, Pirelli and DAG-Mercedes-Benz
submitted the following reasoning:
1. The petitioners cited the following noncompliance petitions that
the Agency has granted previously:
a. DAG-Mercedes-Benz cited Continental Tire the America, LLC, Grant
of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance. See 83 FR
36668, July 30, 2018.
b. Pirelli cited Tireco Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance. See 76 FR 66353, October 26, 2011.
c. The petitioners cited Michelin North America, Grant of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance. See 74 FR 10805, March
12, 2009.
Pirelli highlighted that in the Michelin case, the tire was marked
on one sidewall as having a maximum permissible inflation pressure of
``300 kPa,'' while the other sidewall was marked ``350 kPa.'' In
concluding that this noncompliance was inconsequential to safety, NHTSA
cited the following justifications:
``Since the load that is marked on both sides of the tire (i.e.,
750 KG (1653 lb.)) is correct; the recommended inflation pressure
(240 kPa (35 PSI)) is well below both the correct tire pressure of
300 kPa (44 PSI), and the incorrectly labeled tire pressure of 350
kPa (51 PSI); and, in any event, the tire was manufactured to safely
accommodate a pressure of 350 kPa (51 PSI), the tire cannot be
inadvertently overloaded.''
2. DAG-Mercedes-Benz stated that the subject tires meet or exceed
all performance and safety requirements for tires with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa, and the mislabeling has no
effect whatsoever on their safety or performance. DAG-Mercedes-Benz
asserted the following:
a. The subject tires were designed and engineered as tires with a
maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa, and they meet or
exceed all of the performance requirements for such tires.
Specifically, the tires meet the applicable specifications contained in
FMVSS No. 139 for tire dimensions under paragraph S6.1, the high-speed
performance test under paragraph S6.2, the tire endurance test under
paragraph S6.3, the low inflation pressure test under paragraph S6.4,
and the bead unseating test applicable under paragraph S6.6 (which
references FMVSS No. 109, paragraph S5.2). These tires also meet the
tire strength test specified for tires with a maximum inflation
pressure of 350 kPa, in accordance with paragraph S6.5 of
[[Page 75692]]
FMVSS No. 139 (which references FMVSS No. 109, paragraph S5.3).
b. Since the subject tires were labeled as having a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 340 kPa rather than 350 kPa, the
tires would be subject to a different strength test specification under
FMVSS No. 139 (which references FMVSS No. 109, paragraph S5.3), which
they were not meant to satisfy.
c. The mislabeling of the subject tires has no effect on vehicle
safety as compared to tires that are properly and correctly labeled
with a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa. The error
does not present any risk of over-inflation since the design maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa is higher than the labeled
inflation pressure of 340 kPa. Additionally, there is no risk of tire
under inflation, since the calculated load-carrying capacity of the
tire at 340 kPa is met and exceeded by the design for 350 kPa.
d. All of the tire load-carrying information labeled on the subject
tires is correct and, in fact, that information understates the load-
carrying capacity of the tires. Since the tires were designed to have a
maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa, according to the
European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization (ETRTO) guidelines, these
tires have a load-carrying capacity that is higher by 15 to 20 kg.
e. The mislabeling does not cause any safety problems, such as
increasing the probability of tire failure, if the tires were inflated
to 350 kPa under a load of 750kg, and it is not likely to result in
unsafe use of the tires. In a similar case, NHTSA granted an
inconsequentiality petition with respect to two tires, one of which was
mislabeled as having a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350
kPa instead of 300 kPa, and the other tire was mislabeled as having a
maximum permissible inflation pressure of 300 kPa instead of 350
kPa.\3\ As NHTSA has acknowledged, ``the choice of the maximum
inflation pressure level then becomes the choice of the tire
manufacturer, as long as it is in compliance with the established
values under FMVSS No. 139 paragraph S5.5.4.'' \4\ Both 340 and 350
maximum inflation pressure levels are acceptable choices for this tire
under paragraph S5.5.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, Grant of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 80 FR 31092, June 1,
2015.
\4\ See Michelin North America, Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 74 FR 10805, March 12, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. NHTSA has previously stated that it has retained the requirement
that tires be marked with the maximum permissible inflation pressure
only ``as an aid in preventing over-inflation,'' for which there is no
risk in this case.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Michelin North America, Inc., Grant of Application for
Decision that Noncompliance is Inconsequential to Motor Vehicle
Safety; 70 FR 10161, March 2, 2005 (concluding that ``the
mislabeling issue, in this case, will in no way contribute to the
risk of over-inflation because the value actually marked is lower
than the value required by the regulations'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Pirelli stated that the different tire strength test criteria
for tires marked with a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 340
kPa vs. 350 kPa do not have any real-world safety relevance in this
case.
a. Since these tires are labeled as having a maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 340 kPa rather than 350 kPa, the tires would be
subject to a different strength test criteria under FMVSS No. 109/139,
which they were not meant to satisfy. Due to this labeling error, the
appropriate specification to be applied should be that which is
applicable to the tire as designed, with a maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 350 kPa.
b. FMVSS No. 139, paragraph S6.5 incorporates the tire strength
test requirements of FMVSS No. 109, paragraph S5.3. Specifically, under
the tire strength test in paragraph S5.3 of FMVSS No. 109 (which is
cross-referenced in paragraph S6.5 of FMVSS No. 139), tires with a
maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa should be tested at
180 kPa, while tires with a maximum pressure of 340 kPa should be
tested at 220 kPa.\6\ When tested at these pressures using the test
procedures specified in FMVSS No. 109, a tire with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa must have a minimum breaking
energy of 294 joules, while a tire with a maximum permissible inflation
pressure of 340 kPa must have a minimum breaking energy of 588 joules.
The subject tires have shown a breaking energy of 455 joules, which far
exceeds the requirements for tires marked with a maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 350 kPa (i.e., 54.7% above the required
threshold).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See FMVSS No. 109 New pneumatic and certain specialty tires;
Table II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. The subject tires were developed for a specific DAG-Mercedes-
Benz application and, accordingly, they were subject to and fulfilled a
very stringent DAG-Mercedes-Benz homologation process, including all
customer requirements related to performance, quality and safety
standards.
d. With specific reference to the DAG-Mercedes-Benz applications,
the table below shows the following information for each of the
vehicles for which the tires were fitted as original equipment:
a summary of vehicle weights under ``Normal Load'' and
``Maximum Load'' operating conditions;
the recommended tire inflation pressures for ``Normal
Load'' and ``Maximum Load'' operating conditions reported on each
vehicle's placard;
minimum inflation pressures corresponding to each
vehicle's load condition according to the Tire and Rim Association
standard; and
the minimum inflation pressures corresponding to each load
condition according to the ETRTO standard (as shown at page 8 of
Pirelli's petition \7\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The petition is available in the docket at NHTSA-2019-0038-
0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Either considering the Tire and Rim Association or the ETRTO
standard for the maximum tire load-carrying capacity calculation, a
tire with a load index of 96 ``Standard Load'' would be an appropriate
fitment for each of the identified vehicles and would be more than
sufficient to carry the vehicles' load both under ``Normal Load'' and
``Maximum Load'' conditions. In other words, under the above-reported
operating conditions, an ``Extra Load'' tire with a load index of 100
is not necessary to carry the vehicles' loads.
f. Considering a tire with a load index of 96 ``Standard Load,''
and marked with a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa,
based on the above consideration, for each of the above-mentioned
vehicles, the referenced strength test limit, and testing conditions
are sufficient to achieve all strength test-related standards.
g. The subject tires are self-supporting ``run flat'' tires
designed with a reinforcing element in the sidewall that carries the
vehicle load under zero (0) kPa inflation pressure operating
conditions, thereby avoiding the complete deflection of the tire
sidewall which may lead to the tire rim roll-off. Thus, even in the
event of a failure of the type that the tire strength test was
originally intended to address (i.e., road hazards), the subject tires'
run flat design enables the vehicle to maintain stability, drivability,
and control. Accordingly, there are no safety consequences in the event
of such a failure.
h. The safety of the subject tires has been confirmed through
rigorous testing under different testing methods focused to measure
resistance to accidental impact damage and tire durability.
Neither petitioner is aware of any warranty claims, field reports,
customer complaints, legal claims, or any
[[Page 75693]]
incidents or injuries related to the original or the replacement tires.
VI. Public Comment
NHTSA received one comment from the public.\8\ The commenter posted
anonymously in opposition to NHTSA granting the subject petitions. The
commenter argued that if the petitioners' petitions were to be granted,
it would protect the manufacturers rather than consumers. The commenter
further asserted that most vehicle owners do not know how to properly
check and maintain the air pressure in their tires or understand how
damaging and dangerous under-inflated tires have the potential to be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2019-0038-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\9\ NHTSA also 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.'' \10\
``[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.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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).
\10\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12,
2016).
\11\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. NHTSA's Response to the Petitioners' Petitions
NHTSA considered several factors specific to these petitions and
disagrees that mismarking the maximum permissible inflation pressure is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Because the subject tires were marked with a maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 340 kPa, these tires are required to meet the
strength test conditions specified under paragraph S6.5, Tire Strength,
of FMVSS No. 139, which points to the requirements documented in
paragraph S5.3 of FMVSS No. 109. Based on Pirelli's testing and the
sidewall picture Pirelli submitted to the Agency on July 11, 2019, the
tire failed to meet the applicable requirement since it did not reach
the minimum energy levels specified in the FMVSS standard.
Specifically, a tire labeled with a maximum permissible inflation
pressure of 340 kPa must meet or exceed a strength test requirement of
588 joules. Based on the information provided by Pirelli, the subject
tires obtained energy levels up to 486.4 joules, which is significantly
below the minimum requirement of 588 joules. NHTSA's regulations have
different energy level requirements because a tire with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 340 kPa is an ``Extra Load'' tire,
whereas a tire with a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa
is a ``Standard Load'' tire.
Furthermore, based on the picture and information Pirelli provided
to the Agency on July 11, 2019,\12\ NHTSA does not believe that the
only incorrect marking on the tire was the labeling of a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 340 kPa, as Pirelli described in its
petition. The tire was also incorrectly marked as an ``Extra Load''
tire and the maximum load marked on the subject tires is 800 kg (1764
lbs.). This information correlates to a tire designed and manufactured
as a tire having an inflation pressure of 340 kPa according to the 2019
edition of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book.\13\ Therefore, the
tire appears to be marked in multiple ways that would indicate to users
that it is an ``Extra Load'' tire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2019-0038-0005.
\13\ According to the Tire and Rim Association Year Book, 2019
edition, the maximum loading capacity for a tire marked 350 kPa is
710 kg (1565 lbs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tires labeled with either a maximum permissible inflation pressure
of 340 kPa or 350 kPa are both acceptable choices under FMVSS No. 139,
S5.5.4. However, the 340 kPa labeling indicates that a tire can support
a load that is 199 lbs. per tire more than a tire marked with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa. Because the subject tires
were engineered and manufactured to support the maximum load carrying
capacity for a tire marked with a maximum permissible inflation
pressure of 350 kPa, labeling the subject tires with an inflation
pressure of 340 kPa creates the risk that the tires will be overloaded.
For example, a consumer relying on the incorrect labeling may believe
an overload condition of as much as 796 lbs. is safe--even though that
overload poses a risk to motor vehicle safety.
The Michelin petition \14\ for inconsequential noncompliance cited
by the petitioners does not support the petitioners' claims. In the
Michelin case, the Agency concluded that the incorrect labeling on the
tire would not lead to the tire being inadvertently overloaded since
the load on both sidewalls of the tire understates its capability. In
contrast, the petitioners' petitions concern tires that were marked
with information that would likely result in misuse of the tires,
including the risk of overloading the tires. Overloading can lead to
tire failure and resulting loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk
of a crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Michelin North America, Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 74 FR 10805, March 12, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Continental Tire the Americas, LLC's petition for
inconsequential noncompliance,\15\ which the petitioners cited does not
support the petitioners' claims. In that petition, the tires in
question were labeled with both 300 kPa and 350 kPa. Tires having both
of these labels are tested using the same test inflation pressures and
must comply with the same energy levels since both pressures are in
reference to a ``Standard Load'' tire. In the petitioners' case, the
tires are marked as ``Extra Load'' tires instead of ``Standard Load''
tires--thus distinguishing the petitioners' labeling error from the
Continental Tire the Americas, LLC's petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, Grant of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 83 FR 36668, July 30,
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Tireco Inc. petition \16\ the maximum permissible inflation
pressures in kPa and PSI were reversed (i.e., the kPa number was
labeled as PSI and the PSI number was labeled as kPa). The Agency
concluded the incorrect labeling of the tire inflation information will
not have any consequential effect on motor vehicle safety because it is
unlikely a vehicle owner would inflate the tires to the incorrectly
labeled pressure because it was so obviously incorrect. Whereas, with
respect to the petitioners' error, the incorrect markings on the
subject tires are not obviously incorrect, and therefore, are likely to
be
[[Page 75694]]
relied upon by vehicle owners in a way that poses a risk to motor
vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Tireco, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 76 FR 66353, October 26, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners state that they do not foresee any safety issues
due to consumers over-inflating the tires since a maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 350 kPa is a higher pressure than the 340 kPa
that is erroneously labeled on the subject tires--since the tires were
engineered to sustain the higher of the two inflation pressures. NHTSA
agrees with the petitioners on this one limited point; however,
agreement on this one limited point does not affect NHTSA's ultimate
decision to deny the petitions.
According to the Tire and Rim Association Year Book (2019), a tire
for this size designation should have a load index of 96. The words
``Extra Load'' emphasizes that the tire has been marked or labeled with
a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 340 kPa which corresponds
to a load index of 100. Based on the sidewall pictures, the subject
tires were also mistakenly labeled with a load index of 100, which
pertains to an ``Extra Load'' tire or a tire with a maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 340 kPa. For these reasons, the Agency believes
that the tire was not correctly marked with respect to the load index
labeling information and, therefore, misleads the public and vehicle
owners as to the appropriate usage of the tire.
Even though the subject tires meet rigorous testing under the FMVSS
and other methods employed by DAG-Mercedes-Benz, like the curb test,
maximum pressure resistance (static blow out test), rim roll-off test,
fatigue test, run-flat mileage test, rapid loss of inflation and lane
change test, integrity tests, etc., that does not negate the fact that
these tires must also meet the strength test according to FMVSS No.
139, section S6.5.1, Tire Strength Test for Passenger Car Tires.
Furthermore, Pirelli seems to recognize that the subject tires fail to
meet the minimum requirements under the FMVSS for a tire labeled with a
maximum permissible inflation pressure of 340 kPa.
Finally, for a tire with a load index of 100, the energy level--as
referenced in FMVSS No. 109--is 588 joules on Table I-C Radial Ply
Tires for ``Extra Load'' tires. The subject tires failed to meet this
required energy level, pursuant to FMVSS No. 139/FMVSS No. 109.
For the above-stated reasons, the Agency finds that the subject
noncompliance is consequential to motor vehicle safety.
VIII. NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has determined that DAG-
Mercedes-Benz and Pirelli have not met their burden of persuasion that
the subject FMVSS No. 139 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. Accordingly, DAG-Mercedes-Benz's and Pirelli's
petitions are hereby denied, and DAG-Mercedes-Benz and Pirelli are
consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for
that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8.)
Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022-26769 Filed 12-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
