[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20879-20881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9162]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0047; Notice 1]


Tireco, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 
Noncompliance

    Tireco, Inc., (Tireco), has determined that approximately 6,170 of 
its ``GEO-Trac'' brand P235/75R15 passenger car tires, manufactured 
between June 12, 2009 and August 20, 2009 by the fabricating 
manufacturer, the Shandong Linglong Tyre Co., Ltd., and imported into 
the United States by Tireco, do not comply with paragraph S5.5(c) of 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New pneumatic 
radial tires for light vehicles. Tireco 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), Tireco 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 Tireco's petition is published under 49 
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or 
other exercise of

[[Page 20880]]

judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    Affected are approximately 6,170 tires imported into the United 
States by Tireco who identified the tires as ``Geo-Trac'' brand P235/
75R15 passenger car replacement tires.
    In consultation with the fabricating manufacturer, the Shandong 
Linglong Tyre Co., Ltd., Tireco has determined that all of the 
noncompliant tires were manufactured between June 12, 2009 (Serial Week 
24) and August 20, 2009 (Serial Week 34). Tireco stated that it has 
already retrieved almost half of the 6,170 noncompliant tires from its 
distributors and dealers and estimates that there are only 3,370 
noncompliant tires in the field that would be covered by the requested 
exemption.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Tireco's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR Part 556, 
requests an agency decision to exempt Tireco as importer from the 
notification and recall responsibilities of 49 CFR Part 573 for 
3,370 of the 6,170 affected tires. However, the agency cannot 
relieve Tireco's distributors 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 Tireco recognized that the subject noncompliance existed. 
Those tires must be brought into conformance, exported, or 
destroyed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph S5.5(c) (and paragraph S5.5.4 as incorporated by 
reference) of FMVSS No. 139 requires in pertinent part:

    S5.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in paragraphs (a) 
through (i) of S5.5, each tire must be marked on each sidewall with 
the information specified in S5.5(a) through (d) and on one sidewall 
with the information specified in S5.5(e) through (i) according to 
the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this standard. The markings 
must be placed between the maximum section width and the bead on at 
least one sidewall, unless the maximum section width of the tire is 
located in an area that is not more than one-fourth of the distance 
from the bead to the shoulder of the tire. If the maximum section 
width falls within that area, those markings must appear between the 
bead and a point one-half the distance from the bead to the shoulder 
of the tire, on at least one sidewall. The markings must be in 
letters and numerals not less than 0.078 inches high and raised 
above or sunk below the tire surface not less than 0.015 inches. * * 
*
    (c) The maximum permissible inflation pressure, subject to the 
limitations of S5.5.4 through S5.5.6 of this standard; * * *
    S5.5.4 For passenger car tires, if the maximum inflation 
pressure of a tire is 240, 280, 300, 340, or 350 kPa, then:
    (a) Each marking of that inflation pressure pursuant to S5.5(c) 
must be followed in parenthesis by the equivalent psi, rounded to 
the next higher whole number; * * *

    Tireco indicated that the noncompliance is that the markings on the 
non-compliant tires specifying the maximum inflation pressure in kPa 
and in psi are reversed from the order required by paragraph S5.5.5(c). 
The Company said that the maximum inflation pressure should have been 
marked as ``300 kPa (44 psi)'' but were ``inadvertently'' marked on 
both sidewalls with a maximum inflation pressure of ``44 kPa (300 
psi).'' Tireco reported that this noncompliance was brought to their 
attention on August 19, 2009 by one of the company's distributor 
customers.
    Tireco argues that no vehicle operator would ever inflate the tires 
to the incorrect pressures that appear on the sidewalls of the subject 
tires, and specifically stated that ``it would be virtually impossible 
to do so.'' Tireco supports this conclusion with the following 
statements:

     With respect to the erroneous psi marking, no 
commercially available air compressor used in tire retail stores, at 
gas stations, or for home use has the capacity to inflate tires to 
300 psi, and consumers would immediately be aware from their past 
experience that a pressure of 300 psi could not be correct.
     With respect to the erroneous kPa marking, it [is] 
extremely unlikely that a consumer would attempt to inflate the 
tires to 44 kPa, since (1) drivers in the United States almost 
always utilize the psi parameter rather than kPa value when they 
inflate their tires; and (2) any driver who used the kPa parameter 
would know that the 44 kPa value was not correct, since all 
passenger car tires have a maximum inflation pressure of at least 
240 kPa. Moreover, even if a consumer were to attempt to inflate the 
tires to 44 kPa (which is equivalent to approximately 7 psi), he or 
she would immediately be aware that the tires were drastically 
underinflated, and would not be in a drivable state.

    Tireco concludes that the subject non-compliance ``cannot result in 
the tires being overloaded, or any other adverse safety consequence to 
the tires or to the vehicles on which they are mounted.'' Additionally, 
Tireco cites three cases which it believes support its conclusion that 
NHTSA has previously granted tires companies inconsequentiality 
exemptions relating to errors in the marking of maximum inflation 
pressure. (See Michelin North America, Inc., 70 FR 10161 (March 2, 
2005); Kumho Tire Co., Inc., 71 FR 6129 (February 6, 2006); and 
Michelin North America, Inc., 74 FR 10805 (March 12, 2009)).
    Furthermore, Tireco points out three other substantive factors that 
support its petition:

     The subject tires meet or exceed all of the substantive 
performance requirements of FMVSS No. 139.
     There have been no complaints regarding this issue from 
vehicle owners (the incorrect markings were brought to Tireco's 
attention by one of its distributors).
     The manufacturer of these tires, Shandong Linglong Tyre 
Co., Ltd., has corrected the molds at its factory, so that this 
noncompliance will not be repeated in current or future production.

    Supported by all of the above stated reasons, Tireco believes that 
the described noncompliance of its tires to meet the requirements of 
FMVSS No. 139 is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its 
petition, to exempt it from providing recall notification of 
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall 
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    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 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 a.m. to 5 p.m. 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://

[[Page 20881]]

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: May 21, 2010.

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

    Issued on: April 15, 2010.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2010-9162 Filed 4-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P