[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