Michelin North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 106737-106739 [2024-30950]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 106737-106739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30950]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0035; Notice 2]


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

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

[[Page 106738]]


ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Michelin North America, Inc. (MNA), has determined that 
certain Michelin Primacy Tour A/S replacement passenger car tires do 
not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 
139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. MNA filed an 
original noncompliance report dated March 25, 2021, and subsequently, 
MNA petitioned NHTSA on April 7, 2021, for a decision that the subject 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. 
This notice announces the grant of MNA's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Jayton Lindley, Office of Vehicle 
Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA), telephone (325) 655-0547, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    MNA has determined that certain Michelin Primacy Tour A/S 
replacement passenger car tires do not fully comply with the 
requirements of paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 139, New Pneumatic 
Radial Tires for Light Vehicles (49 CFR 571.139). MNA filed a 
noncompliance report dated March 25, 2021, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. MNA subsequently 
petitioned NHTSA on April 7, 2021, for an exemption from the 
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the 
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor 
vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR 
part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    Notice of receipt of MNA's petition was published with a 30-day 
public comment period, on November 18, 2021, in the Federal Register 
(86 FR 64595). No comments were 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-2021-0035.''

II. Tires Involved

    Approximately 1,196 Michelin Primacy Tour A/S replacement passenger 
car tires, size 235/65R18 106H, manufactured between January 3, 2021, 
and January 23, 2021, were identified by MNA as being potentially 
involved, however, MNA clarified that 1,139 tires were captured and 
retained in MNA's inventory. Any decision on this petition will only 
apply to the approximately 57 tires that MNA no longer controlled at 
the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.

III. Noncompliance

    MNA explains that the noncompliance is due to a mold error in which 
the subject tires contain a tire identification number (TIN) with an 
inverted plant code and, therefore, do not comply with the requirements 
specified in paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 139.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 139 includes the requirements 
relevant to this petition.
     For tires manufactured on or after September 1, 2009, each 
tire must be labeled with the tire identification number required by 49 
CFR part 574 on the intended outboard sidewall of the tire.
     Except for retreaded tires, if a tire does not have an 
intended outboard sidewall, the tire must be labeled with the tire 
identification number required by 49 CFR part 574 on one sidewall and 
with either the tire identification number or a partial tire 
identification number, containing all characters in the tire 
identification number except for the date code and, at the discretion 
of the manufacturer, any optional code, on the other sidewall.

V. Summary of MNA's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V. 
Summary of MNA's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by 
MNA and do not reflect the views of the Agency. MNA describes the 
subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is 
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, MNA submitted the following reasoning:
    1. The TIN marking noncompliance does not create any operational 
safety risk for the vehicle. The tires comply with applicable FMVSS and 
all other applicable regulations.
    2. The incorrect orientation of the TIN plant code has no bearing 
on tire performance.
    3. The subject tires are marked with all other markings required 
under FMVSS No. 139, such as S5.5(c) maximum permissible inflation 
pressure and S5.5(d) maximum load rating. The necessary information is 
available on the sidewall of the tire to ensure proper application and 
usage.
    4. The subject tires contain the DOT symbol on both sidewalls, 
thus, indicating conformance to applicable FMVSS.
    5. The plant code on the intended outboard side of the tires 
contain all the information required by 49 CFR 574.5 for the TIN (plant 
code + size code + option code + date code), however the 3-digit plant 
code is inverted. The text should read ``DOT 1M3'' and instead reads 
``DOT [upsi]WL.''
    6. The plant code orientation discrepancy only exists on the 
intended inboard sidewall of the tire. The intended inboard sidewall 
has the correct sequence of DOT + plant code + size code + option code 
+ manufacturing date, with all characters oriented in the proper 
direction.
    7. For identification and traceability purposes the key information 
of plant code and manufacturing date is present on the tire.
    8. In the event that dealer/owner notifications are required, 
either the intended marking (DOT 1M3) or the actual marking (DOT 
inverted ``1M3'') would serve as an identifier of the tire.
    9. Upon identification of the mismarking, Michelin instituted a 
block on the affected tires and initiated a sorting of inventories. A 
total of 1,139 of the 1,196 tires produced with the incorrect marking 
were captured and retained in Michelin inventory.
    10. The plant code plate in the affected mold has been restored to 
its correct orientation.
    11. The mismarking has been communicated to Michelin Customer Care 
representatives in order to effectively handle any inquiries from 
dealers or owners regarding the subject tires.
    12. MNA contends that NHTSA has concluded in other petitions 
related to similar TIN marking errors that this type of noncompliance 
is inconsequential to safety. Most notably, Cooper Tire & Rubber 
Company, 81 FR 43708 (July 5, 2016) petitioned for tires produced with 
an inverted date code. MNA states that NHTSA concluded that the 
inverted marking did not affect the consumers' ability to identify the 
tire and other examples exist where TIN information was incorrect, 
missing, or molded in the wrong sequence and NHTSA granted the 
petition.
    MNA concludes its petition by stating 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

[[Page 106739]]

noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NHTSA requested that Michelin provide compliance test data 
for the subject tires while processing this request. Michelin 
provided this data but requested confidential treatment under 49 CFR 
part 512. This is reflected in a memo placed in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    VII. NHTSA's Analysis: In determining inconsequentiality of a 
noncompliance, NHTSA focuses on the safety risk to individuals who 
experience the type of event against which a recall would otherwise 
protect.\2\ In general, NHTSA does not consider the absence of 
complaints or injuries when determining if a noncompliance is 
inconsequential to safety. The absence of complaints does not mean 
vehicle occupants have not experienced a safety issue, nor does it mean 
that there will not be safety issues in the future.\3\ Further, because 
each inconsequential noncompliance petition must be evaluated on its 
own facts and determinations are highly fact-dependent, NHTSA does not 
consider prior determinations as binding precedent. Petitioners are 
reminded that they have the burden of persuading NHTSA that the 
noncompliance is inconsequential to safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding 
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no 
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system 
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods. 
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using 
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly 
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
    \3\ See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 
12, 2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 
754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk 
when it ``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden 
engine fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some such 
hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in 
the future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has evaluated the merits of the petition submitted by MNA and 
is granting MNA's request for relief from notification and remedy based 
on the following:
    1. Based on its review of the information MNA submitted, NHTSA has 
no basis to believe that tires do not meet the performance and labeling 
requirements of FMVSS 139, with the exception of the inverted plant 
code.
    2. NHTSA believes that manufacturers and consumers will be able to 
identify the affected tires in the event of a recall for the following 
reasons:
    a. The oval surrounding the plant code portion of the TIN visually 
groups the 3 characters from the rest of the TIN. This helps the reader 
to understand that the mold plate for the plant code portion of the TIN 
was put in place inverted.
    b. The font style is such that it is evident that the characters 
are inverted, however the inverted plant code could possibly be read as 
``EWI,'' ``EWL,'' or ``EW1.'' None of these are currently assigned to 
an active tire plant registered with NHTSA, and EWI in particular would 
not be assigned because ``I'' is not a permitted symbol.
    c. The inboard sidewall of the tire has the plant code molded in 
the correct orientation.
    3. NHTSA believes that the manufacturer has taken sufficient steps 
to ensure that the affected tires are included in any future recalls 
by:
    a. Ensuring that the affected tires may be registered with either 
the correct TIN or any of the possible interpretations of the inverted 
characters.
    b. Ensuring that any future safety-related recalls for the affected 
tires will include TIN numbers with all the possible interpretations of 
the inverted characters.
    c. Coordinating with customer care representatives to handle 
inquiries related to the inverted plant code characters.
    VII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA 
finds that MNA has met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS 
No. 139 noncompliance in the affected tires is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety. Accordingly, MNA's petition is hereby granted, and MNA 
is consequently exempted from the obligation of providing notification 
of, and a free remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 
30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a 
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers 
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, 
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance 
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision 
only applies to the subject tires that MNA no longer controlled at the 
time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the 
granting of this petition does not relieve tire distributors and 
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or 
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of 
the noncompliant tires under their control after MNA notified them that 
the subject noncompliance existed.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 49 
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Eileen Sullivan,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2024-30950 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P