
[Federal Register: March 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 47)]
[Notices]               
[Page 10805-10806]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12mr09-123]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0087; Notice 2]

 
Michelin North America, Grant 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. Notice of receipt of a petition was published, with a 30-
day comment period, on May 12, 2008, in the Federal Register (73 FR 
27024). No comments were received. To view the petition and all 
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System Web 
site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search 
instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2008-0087.''
    For further information on this decision, contact Mr. George 
Gillespie, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5299, 
facsimile (202) 366-7002.
    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 (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.
    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

[[Page 10806]]

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 on 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 Decision

    Subsequent to the submission of its petition, MNA explained to 
NHTSA that although it had assigned a maximum sidewall marking pressure 
of 300 kPa (44 PSI) to the tires, the tires were manufactured to 
withstand and to safely accommodate a maximum pressure of 350 kPa (51 
PSI). MNA also explained that a ``common green'' is a universal tire 
subassembly that is manufactured in high volume and used as a core 
around which similar size tires having different nonstructural 
properties are assembled. The ``common green'' includes the major 
structural elements of a tire. The ``common green'' for the subject 
tire was actually manufactured to performance specifications that 
require the tire to be able to withstand a maximum pressure of 350 kPa 
(51 PSI). MNA further explained that the decision to mark the lower 
pressure on the tire was based on marketing reasons, not safety 
concern. NHTSA does not contest that, as MNA argues, it is a common 
practice that a tire may be marked with a maximum pressure that is 
lower than its capacity.
    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.
    NHTSA agrees that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety. 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 consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that MNA has 
met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 139 labeling 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, 
MNA's petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted from the 
obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, the subject 
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.

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

    Issued on: March 5, 2009.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
 [FR Doc. E9-5276 Filed 3-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
