81 FR 21660 - Mercedes-Benz USA LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 70 (April 12, 2016)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 70 (April 12, 2016)
| Page Range | 21660-21662 | |
| FR Document | 2016-08361 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 21660-21662] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-08361] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0029; Notice 2] Mercedes-Benz USA LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Denial of petition. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Mercedes-Benz USA LLC (MBUSA), on behalf of itself and its parent company Daimler AG (DAG), collectively referred to as ``Mercedes'' has determined that certain model year (MY) 2015 Mercedes- Benz C-Class (205 Platform) passenger cars do not fully comply with paragraph S10.18.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Mercedes has filed a report dated February 9, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Mercedes then petitioned NHTSA under 49 CFR part 556 requesting a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Mike Cole, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-2334, facsimile (202) 366-5930. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Mercedes' Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, Mercedes 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. Notice of receipt of Mercedes' petition was published, with a 30- day public comment period, on April 16, 2015 in the Federal Register (80 FR 20571). No comments were received. To view the petition and all supporting documents, log onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2015-0029.'' II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 9,137 MY 2015 Mercedes-Benz C-Class (205 Platform) passenger cars manufactured from June 18, 2014 through September 5, 2014 at Mercedes' Tuscaloosa, Alabama plant. III. Noncompliance: Mercedes explains that the subject vehicles were manufactured with horizontal adjustment-visually aimed headlamps that have a lower beam and a horizontal adjustment mechanism that was not made inoperative at the factory. Specifically, the horizontal adjustment screw was not properly sealed off with non-removable sealing caps as necessary to fully meet the requirements of paragraph S10.18.4 of FMVSS No. 108. IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S10.18.4 of FMVSS No. 108 requires in pertinent part: S10.18.4 Horizontal adjustment-visually aimed headlamp. A visually/ optically aimable headlamp that has a lower beam must not have a horizontal adjustment mechanism unless such mechanism meets the requirements of this standard for on vehicle aiming as specified in S10.18.8. V. Summary of MBUSA's Analyses: Mercedes stated its belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons: (A) Mercedes believes that new manufacturing methods, including the use of optical image processing to adjust the horizontal and the vertical illumination levels of headlamps in addition to the reduction in assembly tolerances for headlamp assemblies, has resulted in optimal headlamp adjustments on vehicles leaving their manufacturing plants. As a result, on-vehicle aiming devices are no longer common in the industry. Mercedes believes that this has led to the elimination of the need for horizontal headlamp adjustment on in-use [[Page 21661]] vehicles. Regarding the subject vehicles, Mercedes says there is generally no need for customers or repair shops to adjust the horizontal aim of headlamps. (B) Mercedes states that they have only received five customer complaints in the United States, relating to alleged headlamp mis- aiming in the subject vehicles. None of the complaints relate to horizontal mis-aiming of the headlamps. In all instances customers brought their vehicles in for service by Mercedes repair shops, who know how to perform a headlamp readjustment properly, without using the horizontal adjustment screw. (C) Mercedes states that they provide service instructions to U.S. repair shops that horizontal headlamp adjustment is not permitted and do not even mention that a horizontal headlamp adjustment screw exists. Similarly, the vehicle owner's manual does not include information about performing headlamp illumination adjustment. Thus, since the horizontal headlamp screw's existence is not mentioned in any sales or service instructions or manuals, use of the screw by the customer or repair facilities would be extremely unlikely. (D) Mercedes also states that even if the screw were to be used, such adjustment would result in only minimal differences in illumination levels compared to the original levels because it provides only a minimal range of adjustment. Mercedes elaborated by stating that when the horizontal adjustment screw is turned to the far left or far right end-position, only a few measuring points are slightly above or below the FMVSS No. 108 required levels. Specifically, when the horizontal adjustment screw is turned to the maximum left end-position (-2.8[deg]), only 4 out of 24 measuring points are above (3) or under (1) the required illumination levels. And when the horizontal adjustment screw is turned to the maximum right end-position (+3.2[deg]), only 2 out of 24 measuring points are under the required illumination levels. Thus, the difference between these worst-case levels and the required minimum or maximum levels are very small. According to Mercedes' headlamp development engineers, a difference of 300 cd [candela] is unlikely to be noticed by a driver and would not affect oncoming traffic or visibility in any material way. In addition, the subject headlamps rely on a reflection-based system which Mercedes' believes leads to less glare then projection-based system. Mercedes has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the subject noncompliance on vehicles in subsequent production and that all future vehicles will be in full compliance with FMVSS No. 108. In summation, Mercedes believes that the described noncompliance of the subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to exempt from providing recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted. NHTSA's Decision NHTSA'S Analysis: Mercedes states that its service instructions to U.S. repair shops specify that horizontal headlamp adjustment is not permitted and that they do not mention the existence of a horizontal headlamp adjustment screw. Similarly, the vehicle owner's manual does not include information about performing headlamp adjustment. As a result, Mercedes concludes that use of the headlamps horizontal aiming screw by a customer or repair facilities would be extremely unlikely. This argument is not persuasive. As these vehicles get older and fall out of the warranty period, consumers will have more options for servicing than Mercedes dealerships. Further, many states also have vehicle inspection stations that periodically check and adjust headlamp aim and these entities may not be familiar with this headlamp design. Therefore, NHTSA contends that it is possible that entities not familiar with the subject vehicle's design may use the screw to adjust the horizontal aim. NHTSA has granted prior inconsequentiality petitions with similar arguments; however, the prior petitions also demonstrated that the horizontal aiming mechanisms were difficult to access (see Bentley Motors, Inc., 76 FR 4744, and General Motors, 71 FR 34415). That is not the case for the Mercedes petition. Because no mention was made of the accessibility of the horizontal aiming mechanism, a NHTSA representative inspected a 2015 Mercedes C-Class and found that a non- sealed horizontal aiming mechanism would be easily accessible, and would likely be the first adjustment screw used to alter the headlamp adjustment by someone unfamiliar with this headlamp design. This is because the horizontal aiming mechanism screw is in plain view, whereas, the required vertical aiming mechanism is out of sight and only accessible through a non-descript hole in the upper radiator support using a long tool. Mercedes also argued that even if the horizontal aim were adjusted, it would result in only minimal differences in illumination levels that would be unlikely to be noticed by a driver or affect oncoming traffic in any material way. To substantiate its claim, Mercedes provided photometric test data at the extreme right and left adjustment of the horizontal aiming mechanism. (Mercedes did not provide any test data at intermediate locations of horizontal adjustment) When adjusted to the extreme left position, the initial measured intensity level was 1,035 candela at test point 1U-1.5L which is nearly 48% over the required maximum of 700 candela. Using a \1/4\ degree reaim, an adjustment permitted by the standard for compliance test purposes, the measured intensity level dropped to 982 candela, but this is still 40% over the required maximum of 700 candela. A NHTSA sponsored study titled ``Driver Perception of Just Noticeable Differences of Automotive Signal Lamp Intensities'' (DOT HS 808 209, September 1994) demonstrated a change in luminous intensity of 25 percent or less is not noticeable by most drivers and is a reasonable criterion for determining the inconsequentiality of non-compliant signal lamps. The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) performed a follow- up study relative to lower beam headlamps titled ``Just Noticeable Differences for Low-Beam Headlamp Intensities.'' (UMTRI-97-4, February 1997) In that report, UMTRI determined that the 25% limit for inconsequential noncompliance determinations was suitable for photometric test points that specified maximum intensities for glare protection. Based on these reports, exceeding the maximum intensity specification by 40% at test point 1U-1.5L, a glare protection point that limits the amount of light into the eyes of oncoming drivers, would be noticeable to other drivers. As explained in the agency's report, ``Nighttime Glare and Driving Performance,'' (Report to Congress, February 2007) increased glare reduces seeing distance because it causes light to scatter in the eyes, which in turn reduces the contrast of roadway objects. Glare decreases visibility distance, increases reaction times to objects in the roadway, and increases recovery time after the eyes have been exposed to increased glare. All of these factors increase risks during nighttime driving. NHTSA'S Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that Mercedes has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, NHTSA hereby denies Mercedes' [[Page 21662]] petition and Mercedes is consequently obligated to provide notification of, and a free remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8. Gregory K. Rea, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. 2016-08361 Filed 4-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
![21660 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Notices
the chief safety officers of rail transit on the FTA public Web site at http:// SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
systems, seeking data and information fta.dot.gov/tso.html. I. Mercedes’ Petition: Pursuant to 49
on stop signal overruns during 2015. Also, FTA is aware that a number of U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the
Safety Advisory 16–1 and the RFGPTSs keep data and information on rule implementing those provisions at
accompanying letter are available in stop signal overruns on their own 49 CFR part 556, Mercedes has
their entirety on the FTA public Web volition, for the purpose of enhancing petitioned for an exemption from the
site at http://www.fta.dot.gov/tso.html. the safety of their operations, albeit they notification and remedy requirements of
DATES: The FTA is asking the directors are not required to report that data and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that
of the SSO programs to submit the information to their SSOAs. The FTA this noncompliance is inconsequential
requested data and information by July seeks to develop as complete a database to motor vehicle safety.
2016. as practical, thus, FTA would appreciate Notice of receipt of Mercedes’ petition
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For these RFGPTSs submitting their data was published, with a 30-day public
program matters, Mr. Sam Shelton, and information to their SSOAs, and in comment period, on April 16, 2015 in
Office of System Safety, telephone (202) turn, the SSOAs providing that material the Federal Register (80 FR 20571). No
366–0815 or Sam.Shelton@dot.gov. For to FTA. The cooperation of the entire comments were received. To view the
legal matters, Scott Biehl, Senior rail transit industry would be very petition and all supporting documents,
Counsel, telephone (202) 366–0826 or helpful in developing a better log onto the Federal Docket
Scott.Biehl@dot.gov. understanding of stop signal overruns, Management System (FDMS) Web site
and in due course, a strategy for at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Across the the online search instructions to locate
rail transit industry, many if not most mitigating the safety risks created by
stop signal overruns. docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2015–0029.’’
operators keep a database on the II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are
number of instances in which their Matthew J. Welbes, approximately 9,137 MY 2015
passenger or maintenance vehicles over Executive Director. Mercedes-Benz C-Class (205 Platform)
run a stop signal. In some instances, [FR Doc. 2016–08353 Filed 4–11–16; 8:45 am] passenger cars manufactured from June
State Safety Oversight Agencies BILLING CODE P 18, 2014 through September 5, 2014 at
(SSOAs) have identified stop signal Mercedes’ Tuscaloosa, Alabama plant.
overruns as event data a Rail Fixed III. Noncompliance: Mercedes
Guideway Public Transportation System DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION explains that the subject vehicles were
(RFGPTS) must record and report to the manufactured with horizontal
SSOA, as part of the hazard National Highway Traffic Safety adjustment-visually aimed headlamps
management process in the System Administration that have a lower beam and a horizontal
Safety Program Plans required by the adjustment mechanism that was not
[Docket No. NHTSA–2015–0029; Notice 2]
FTA rules at 49 CFR part 659. The FTA made inoperative at the factory.
considers stop signal overruns to be Mercedes-Benz USA LLC, Denial of Specifically, the horizontal adjustment
significant events, creating safety risks, Petition for Decision of screw was not properly sealed off with
with potentially catastrophic Inconsequential Noncompliance non-removable sealing caps as necessary
consequences. The FTA now seeks to to fully meet the requirements of
better understand the prevalence of stop AGENCY: National Highway Traffic paragraph S10.18.4 of FMVSS No. 108.
signal overruns throughout the industry. Safety Administration (NHTSA), IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S10.18.4 of
The FTA issued Safety Advisory 16–1, Department of Transportation (DOT). FMVSS No. 108 requires in pertinent
‘‘Stop Signal Overruns,’’ which is ACTION: Denial of petition. part:
eliciting data and information on stop S10.18.4 Horizontal adjustment-visually
signal overruns at RFGPTSs that SUMMARY: Mercedes-Benz USA LLC
aimed headlamp. A visually/optically
occurred during calendar year 2015. (MBUSA), on behalf of itself and its aimable headlamp that has a lower beam
Specifically, FTA is requesting that parent company Daimler AG (DAG), must not have a horizontal adjustment
each SSOA provide FTA with; (1) the collectively referred to as ‘‘Mercedes’’ mechanism unless such mechanism meets
total number of stop signal overruns that has determined that certain model year the requirements of this standard for on
occurred during 2015 at each RFGPTS (MY) 2015 Mercedes-Benz C-Class (205 vehicle aiming as specified in S10.18.8.
within the SSOA’s oversight; (2) each Platform) passenger cars do not fully V. Summary of MBUSA’s Analyses:
RFGPTS’s definition of stop signal comply with paragraph S10.18.4 of Mercedes stated its belief that the
overrun; (3) each RFGPTS’s definition of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard subject noncompliance is
a stop signal/stop aspect (e.g., hand (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective inconsequential to motor vehicle safety
signal, stop sign, cab signal); (4) a Devices, and Associated Equipment. for the following reasons:
description of the process each RFGPTS Mercedes has filed a report dated (A) Mercedes believes that new
uses to internally detect stop signal February 9, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR manufacturing methods, including the
overruns; and, (5) a description of the part 573, Defect and Noncompliance use of optical image processing to adjust
process each RFGPTS uses to report Responsibility and Reports. Mercedes the horizontal and the vertical
stop signal overruns to the SSOA. The then petitioned NHTSA under 49 CFR illumination levels of headlamps in
FTA is requesting this data and part 556 requesting a decision that the addition to the reduction in assembly
information by July 2016. The FTA is subject noncompliance is tolerances for headlamp assemblies, has
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
making this request in accordance with inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. resulted in optimal headlamp
its authority to request State Safety ADDRESSES: For further information on adjustments on vehicles leaving their
Oversight program information, codified this decision contact Mike Cole, Office manufacturing plants. As a result, on-
at 49 CFR 659.39(d). Safety Advisory of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the vehicle aiming devices are no longer
16–1 and an accompanying letter National Highway Traffic Safety common in the industry. Mercedes
addressed to the SSO program Administration (NHTSA), telephone believes that this has led to the
managers, and the chief safety officers of (202) 366–2334, facsimile (202) 366– elimination of the need for horizontal
RFGPTSs, are available in their entirety 5930. headlamp adjustment on in-use
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:18 Apr 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM 12APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_21730/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Notices 21661
vehicles. Regarding the subject vehicles, future vehicles will be in full illumination levels that would be
Mercedes says there is generally no compliance with FMVSS No. 108. unlikely to be noticed by a driver or
need for customers or repair shops to In summation, Mercedes believes that affect oncoming traffic in any material
adjust the horizontal aim of headlamps. the described noncompliance of the way. To substantiate its claim, Mercedes
(B) Mercedes states that they have subject vehicles is inconsequential to provided photometric test data at the
only received five customer complaints motor vehicle safety, and that its extreme right and left adjustment of the
in the United States, relating to alleged petition, to exempt from providing horizontal aiming mechanism.
headlamp mis-aiming in the subject recall notification of noncompliance as (Mercedes did not provide any test data
vehicles. None of the complaints relate required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and at intermediate locations of horizontal
to horizontal mis-aiming of the remedying the noncompliance as adjustment) When adjusted to the
headlamps. In all instances customers required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be extreme left position, the initial
brought their vehicles in for service by granted. measured intensity level was 1,035
Mercedes repair shops, who know how candela at test point 1U–1.5L which is
NHTSA’s Decision
to perform a headlamp readjustment nearly 48% over the required maximum
properly, without using the horizontal NHTSA’S Analysis: Mercedes states of 700 candela. Using a 1⁄4 degree reaim,
adjustment screw. that its service instructions to U.S. an adjustment permitted by the standard
(C) Mercedes states that they provide repair shops specify that horizontal for compliance test purposes, the
service instructions to U.S. repair shops headlamp adjustment is not permitted measured intensity level dropped to 982
that horizontal headlamp adjustment is and that they do not mention the candela, but this is still 40% over the
not permitted and do not even mention existence of a horizontal headlamp required maximum of 700 candela. A
that a horizontal headlamp adjustment adjustment screw. Similarly, the vehicle NHTSA sponsored study titled ‘‘Driver
screw exists. Similarly, the vehicle owner’s manual does not include
Perception of Just Noticeable
owner’s manual does not include information about performing headlamp
Differences of Automotive Signal Lamp
information about performing headlamp adjustment. As a result, Mercedes
Intensities’’ (DOT HS 808 209,
illumination adjustment. Thus, since concludes that use of the headlamps
September 1994) demonstrated a change
the horizontal headlamp screw’s horizontal aiming screw by a customer
in luminous intensity of 25 percent or
existence is not mentioned in any sales or repair facilities would be extremely
less is not noticeable by most drivers
or service instructions or manuals, use unlikely. This argument is not
and is a reasonable criterion for
of the screw by the customer or repair persuasive. As these vehicles get older
determining the inconsequentiality of
facilities would be extremely unlikely. and fall out of the warranty period,
non-compliant signal lamps. The
(D) Mercedes also states that even if consumers will have more options for
servicing than Mercedes dealerships. University of Michigan Transportation
the screw were to be used, such
Further, many states also have vehicle Research Institute (UMTRI) performed a
adjustment would result in only
inspection stations that periodically follow-up study relative to lower beam
minimal differences in illumination
check and adjust headlamp aim and headlamps titled ‘‘Just Noticeable
levels compared to the original levels
because it provides only a minimal these entities may not be familiar with Differences for Low-Beam Headlamp
range of adjustment. Mercedes this headlamp design. Therefore, Intensities.’’ (UMTRI–97–4, February
elaborated by stating that when the NHTSA contends that it is possible that 1997) In that report, UMTRI determined
horizontal adjustment screw is turned to entities not familiar with the subject that the 25% limit for inconsequential
the far left or far right end-position, only vehicle’s design may use the screw to noncompliance determinations was
a few measuring points are slightly adjust the horizontal aim. suitable for photometric test points that
above or below the FMVSS No. 108 NHTSA has granted prior specified maximum intensities for glare
required levels. Specifically, when the inconsequentiality petitions with protection. Based on these reports,
horizontal adjustment screw is turned to similar arguments; however, the prior exceeding the maximum intensity
the maximum left end-position (¥2.8°), petitions also demonstrated that the specification by 40% at test point 1U–
only 4 out of 24 measuring points are horizontal aiming mechanisms were 1.5L, a glare protection point that limits
above (3) or under (1) the required difficult to access (see Bentley Motors, the amount of light into the eyes of
illumination levels. And when the Inc., 76 FR 4744, and General Motors, oncoming drivers, would be noticeable
horizontal adjustment screw is turned to 71 FR 34415). That is not the case for to other drivers. As explained in the
the maximum right end-position (+3.2°), the Mercedes petition. Because no agency’s report, ‘‘Nighttime Glare and
only 2 out of 24 measuring points are mention was made of the accessibility of Driving Performance,’’ (Report to
under the required illumination levels. the horizontal aiming mechanism, a Congress, February 2007) increased
Thus, the difference between these NHTSA representative inspected a 2015 glare reduces seeing distance because it
worst-case levels and the required Mercedes C-Class and found that a non- causes light to scatter in the eyes, which
minimum or maximum levels are very sealed horizontal aiming mechanism in turn reduces the contrast of roadway
small. According to Mercedes’ would be easily accessible, and would objects. Glare decreases visibility
headlamp development engineers, a likely be the first adjustment screw used distance, increases reaction times to
difference of 300 cd [candela] is to alter the headlamp adjustment by objects in the roadway, and increases
unlikely to be noticed by a driver and someone unfamiliar with this headlamp recovery time after the eyes have been
would not affect oncoming traffic or design. This is because the horizontal exposed to increased glare. All of these
visibility in any material way. In aiming mechanism screw is in plain factors increase risks during nighttime
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
addition, the subject headlamps rely on view, whereas, the required vertical driving.
a reflection-based system which aiming mechanism is out of sight and NHTSA’S Decision: In consideration
Mercedes’ believes leads to less glare only accessible through a non-descript of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that
then projection-based system. hole in the upper radiator support using Mercedes has not met its burden of
Mercedes has additionally informed a long tool. persuasion that the subject FMVSS No.
NHTSA that it has corrected the subject Mercedes also argued that even if the 108 noncompliance is inconsequential
noncompliance on vehicles in horizontal aim were adjusted, it would to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
subsequent production and that all result in only minimal differences in NHTSA hereby denies Mercedes’
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:18 Apr 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM 12APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_21730/page/2.svg)
![21662 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Notices
petition and Mercedes is consequently locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2015– size P235[/]55R17 98W. The ground
obligated to provide notification of, and 0098.’’ tires are significantly different in width
a free remedy for, that noncompliance II. Tires Involved: Affected are (approximately four inches wider) and
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120. approximately 3,627 Continental Tire in diameter (approximately three inches
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: brand CST 17 size T125/70R17 98M larger) than the subject spare tires.
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and temporary spare tires sold to General 4. The affected tires also have a
501.8. Motors and also in small quantities in starting tread depth of only 3/32 inch,
the replacement market. These tires whereas a typical P-metric or metric
Gregory K. Rea, were manufactured between March 18, passenger tire has a much deeper tread
Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 2012 and April 11, 2015. depth of approximately 10/32 inch.
[FR Doc. 2016–08361 Filed 4–11–16; 8:45 am] III. Noncompliance: CTA explains CTA also noted that they are not
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P that the noncompliance is that the tire aware of any crashes, injuries, customer
size designation markings on the complaints or field reports associated
sidewalls of the subject tires do not with this noncompliance.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION contain the tire type code designator In addition, CTA informed NHTSA
symbol from The Tire and Rim that it has corrected the mold at the
National Highway Traffic Safety Association yearbook as required by manufacturing plant so that no
Administration paragraph S4.3(a) of FMVSS No. 109. additional tires will be manufactured
Specifically, the subject tire size reads with the subject noncompliance and
[Docket No. NHTSA–2015–0098; Notice 2]
‘‘125/70R17 98M’’ but should read that all remaining CTA inventory of the
Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, ‘‘T125/70R17 98M’’ indicating the tire is subject tires in their possession have
Grant of Petition for Decision of a spare tire and for temporary use. been scrapped.
Inconsequential Noncompliance IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.3(a) of CTA also made reference to
FMVSS No. 109 requires in pertinent inconsequential noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic part: petitions that NHTSA previously
Safety Administration (NHTSA), S4.3 Labeling Requirements. Except as
granted concerning noncompliances
Department of Transportation (DOT). provided in S4.3.1 and S4.3.2 of this that CTA believes are similar to the
ACTION: Grant of petition. standard, each tire, except for those certified subject noncompliance.
to comply with S5.5 of § 571.139, shall have In summation, CTA believes that the
SUMMARY: Continental Tire the permanently molded into or onto both described noncompliance of the subject
Americas, LLC (CTA), has determined sidewalls, in letters and numerals not less tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle
that certain Continental Tire brand than 0.078 inches high, the information safety, and that its petition, to exempt
T-type spare tires do not fully comply shown in paragraphs S4.3(a) through (g) of CTA from providing recall notification
this standard. On at least one sidewall, the of noncompliance as required by 49
with paragraph S4.3(a) of Federal Motor
information shall be positioned in an area
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. between the maximum section width and U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
109, New Pneumatic and Certain bead of the tire, unless the maximum section noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
Specialty Tires. CTA has filed a report width of the tire falls between the bead and 30120 should be granted.
dated August 25, 2015 and amended on one-fourth of the distance from the bead to
NHTSA’s Decision
October 1, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR the shoulder of the tire. . . .
part 573, Defect and Noncompliance (a) One size designation, except that NHTSA’s Analysis: Labeling the tire
Responsibility and Reports. equivalent inch and metric size designations size ‘‘125/70R17’’ instead of ‘‘T125/
may be used; . . . 70R17,’’ violates paragraph S4.3(a) of
ADDRESSES: For further information on
this decision contact Abraham Diaz, V. Summary of CTA’s Analyses: CTA FMVSS No. 109 because the tire is
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the stated that the only missing marking on labeled with an incomplete tire size
National Highway Traffic Safety the sidewalls of the affected tires is the designation for temporary use tires, also
Administration (NHTSA), telephone letter ‘‘T’’ as part of the size designation. referred to as spare tires.
CTA also stated its belief that the NHTSA bases its decision on several
(202) 366–5310, facsimile (202) 366–
omission of the tire size designation points. First, CTS labeled the subject
5930.
markings has no impact on the tires on both sidewalls with the words
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. operational performance or durability of ‘‘TEMPORARY USE ONLY’’ and
Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. these tires or on the safety of vehicles ‘‘INFLATE TO 420KPA (60PSI).’’ The
30118(d) and 30120(h) (see on which these tires may be mounted maximum pressure labeled on the
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), and that the affected tires cannot be subject tires correlates with the pressure
CTA submitted a petition for an confused with normal P-metric or specified for all temporary use tires in
exemption from the notification and metric passenger tires for the following the TRA’s tire publication. Together,
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. reasons: these additional labels provide the user
Chapter 301 on the basis that this 1. Both sidewalls of the affected tires with the same information intended by
noncompliance is inconsequential to have permanently molded letters that the missing labels, and by spelling out
motor vehicle safety. are 1⁄2 inch tall with the words the word TEMPORARY, provides that
Notice of receipt of the petition was ‘‘TEMPORARY USE ONLY.’’ information in clear format. All other
published with a 30-day public 2. Both sidewalls of the affected tires sidewall labels and safety information
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
comment period, on October 29, 2015 in have permanently molded letters and are correct.
the Federal Register (80 FR 66613). No numerals that are 1⁄2 inch tall with the Next, NHTSA agrees that the subject
comments were received. To view the words ‘‘INFLATE TO 420KPA (60PSI),’’ tires would not be confused with non-
petition and all supporting documents as required by section S4.3.5 of FMVSS temporary tires used on vehicles for
log onto the Federal Docket No. 109. which the tires are intended because of
Management System (FDMS) Web site 3. The affected tires are intended as the differences in geometry of the two
at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then spare tires for the Chevy Impala, which types of tires. CTA indicated that the
follow the online search instructions to is equipped with four ground tires of subject tires are approximately four
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:18 Apr 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM 12APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_21730/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2016-04-12 00:46:49
Document Modified: 2016-04-12 00:46:49
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Denial of petition. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 21660 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR