[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 92 (Monday, May 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27024-27025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10483]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0087; Notice 1]


Michelin North America, Receipt of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Michelin North America, Inc. (MNA), has determined that certain 
light vehicle tires that it manufactured during the period beginning 
September 22, 2007 through October 26, 2007 (DOT weeks 3707 and 4207), 
do not fully comply with paragraphs S5.5 & S5.5(c) of 49 CFR 571.139 
(Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139 New Pneumatic 
Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. MNA has filed an appropriate report 
pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility 
and Reports.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule 
at 49 CFR part 556), MNA has petitioned for an exemption from the 
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the 
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle 
safety.
    This notice of receipt of MNA's petition is published under 49 
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or 
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    Affected are approximately 3,385 Michelin brand P235/55R17 98H MXV4 
PLUS tires, produced September 22, 2007 through October 26, 2007 (DOT 
weeks 3707 and 4207). Paragraphs S5.5 & S5.5(c) of 49 CFR 571.139 
require in pertinent part that:

    S5.5 Tire Markings. Except as specified in paragraphs (a) 
through (h) of S5.5 each tire must be marked on each sidewall with 
the information specified in S5.5(a) through (d) and on one side 
wall with the information specified in S5.5(e) through (h) according 
to the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this standard. The 
markings must be placed between the maximum section in S7 of the 
standard. The markings must be placed between the maximum section 
width and the bead on at least one sidewall, unless the maximum 
section width of the tire is located in an area that is not more 
than one-fourth of the distance from the bead of the shoulder of the 
tire. If the maximum section width falls within that area, those 
markings must appear between the bead and a point one-half the 
distance from the bead to the shoulder of the tire, on at least one 
sidewall. The markings must be in letters and numerals not less than 
0.078 inches high and raised above or sunk below the tire surface 
not less than 0.015 inch.
    S5.5(c) The maximum permissible inflation pressure, subject to 
the limitations of S5.5.4 through S5.5.6 of this standard.

    MNA explained that the subject tires were manufactured with an 
incorrect maximum pressure value (350kPa (51 PSI)) marked on the 
outboard (reference) sidewall while the correct maximum pressure value 
(300 kPa (44 PSI)) was marked on the inboard sidewall. MNA expressed 
its belief that both maximum pressure values marked on the tires are 
acceptable choices for this tire. MNA also believes that the 
noncompliance exists because two maximum pressure values have been 
applied to the same tire.
    MNA defends its belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential to 
motor vehicle safety by stating the following reasons:
    (1) Performance requirements--The Subject Tires meet or exceed all 
of the minimum performance requirements of FMVSS No. 139.
    (2) Maximum Pressure Value--Paragraph S5.5.4 of FMVSS No. 139 
limits the choices for the allowed maximum inflation pressure to 240, 
280, 290, 300, 330, 340, 350, or 390 kPa depending on the load version 
of the tire. The Tire & Rim Association (T&RA) standard ``P. 1-34'' 
specifies pressure level options for the maximum permissible inflation 
pressure marking for a corresponding load version and its maximum tire 
load. 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. For 
the subject P235/55R17 standard load tire, both maximum inflation 
pressure values (350 kPa and 300 kPa) are acceptable choices.
    (3) Maximum Pressure Marking--Paragraphs S5.5 and S5.5(c) of FMVSS 
No. 139 both specify that each tire must be marked on each sidewall 
with the maximum permissible inflation pressure. The manufacturer's 
selected inflation pressure value must be marked on both sidewalls of 
the tire in kPa, followed by the appropriate PSI value (FMVSS No. 139 
paragraph S5.5.4(a)) in parentheses. Since only one selection is 
allowed, the same value is required on both sidewalls. Therefore, the 
noncompliance lies only in the fact that both values have been applied 
to the same tire.
    (4) Strength--Each standard load tire has a specified tire strength 
requirement. This requirement is defined in FMVSS No. 139 paragraph 
S6.5 (and FMVSS No. 109 paragraph S5.3) and must be met whether the 
selected maximum permissible pressure marking value is 240 kPa (35 
PSI), 300 kPa (44 PSI), or 350 kPa (51 PSI). The Michelin P235/55 R17 
98H MXV4 PLUS tire meets this requirement. The 350 kPa (51 PSI) maximum 
inflation pressure marking therefore has no impact to the tire's 
performance.
    (5) Overloading--The use of either of the maximum inflation 
pressures displayed on the subject tire sidewalls as the source of 
information for the recommended inflation pressure will not result in 
an overloading of the tires nor reduce the load carrying capacity of 
the tires since both values are above the recommended inflation 
pressure (240 kPa (35PSI)) for the tire's maximum load rating.
    (6) Tire labeling--Maximum permissible inflation pressure labeling 
on tire sidewalls is poorly understood by the general public and it 
should be removed from tire sidewalls because it has limited safety 
value and may confuse customers about the proper source for the 
recommended inflation pressure.
    MNA also states that it has corrected the problem that caused these 
errors so that they will not be repeated in future production.
    MNA requested that NHTSA consider its petition and grant an 
exemption from the notification and recall requirements of the National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act on the basis that the 
noncompliance described above is inconsequential as it relates to motor 
vehicle safety.
    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.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and 
notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by 
any of the following methods:
    a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building

[[Page 27025]]

Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 
20590.
    b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on 
weekdays from 10 am to 5 pm except Federal Holidays.
    c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management 
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the 
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed 
to 1-202-493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater 
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of 
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in 
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish 
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please 
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that 
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the 
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online 
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act 
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received 
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will 
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials 
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be 
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or 
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal 
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: June 11, 2008.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 
CFR 1.50 and 501.8).

    Issued on: May 6, 2008.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. E8-10483 Filed 5-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P