|
|---|
|
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Pirelli Tire, LLC, Denial of Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Anne L. Collins Date: 9 December 2022 Subjects: American Government  , Safety, Tires
Topics: Mercedes-Benz, Pirelli |
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 236 (Friday, December 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75690-75694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26769]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0038; Notice 2]
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Pirelli Tire, LLC, Denial of Petitions
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Daimler AG (DAG) and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA)
collectively referred to as ``DAG-Mercedes-Benz,'' and Pirelli Tire,
LLC (Pirelli), have determined that certain Pirelli P7 Cinturato RUN
FLAT radial tires that were installed as original equipment in certain
model year (MY) 2018-2019 Mercedes-Benz motor vehicles and also sold as
replacement equipment do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light
Vehicles. Pirelli filed a noncompliance report dated February 25, 2019,
and later amended it on March 15, 2019, and DAG-Mercedes-Benz filed a
noncompliance report dated March 4, 2019. Pirelli subsequently
petitioned NHTSA (the ``Agency'') on March 18, 2019, and DAG-Mercedes-
Benz petitioned NHTSA on March 27, 2019, for a decision that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety. This notice announces and explains the denial of DAG-Mercedes-
Benz's and Pirelli's petitions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayton Lindley, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA, (325) 655-0547, Jayton.Lindley@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
DAG-Mercedes-Benz and Pirelli (the ``petitioners'') have determined
that certain Pirelli P7 Cinturato RUN FLAT radial tires that were
installed as original equipment in certain MY 2018-2019 Mercedes-Benz
motor vehicles and also sold as replacement equipment do not fully
comply with paragraph S5.5(c) of FMVSS No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial
Tires for Light Vehicles (49 CFR 571.139).
[[Page 75691]]
Pirelli filed a noncompliance report dated February 25, 2019, and
later amended the report on March 15, 2019, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Pirelli
subsequently petitioned NHTSA, on March 18, 2019, for an exemption from
the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on
the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and
49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
DAG-Mercedes-Benz filed a noncompliance report dated March 4, 2019,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA, on March 27, 2019,\1\
for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for
Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHTSA notes that DAG-Mercedes-Benz's petition was
incorrectly dated March 27, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of receipt of the petitioners' petitions was published with
a 30-day public comment period, on May 19, 2020, in the Federal
Register (85 FR 30014). One comment was received. To view the
petitions, all supporting documents, and the comment from the public,
log onto the Federal Docket Management System's website at https://www.regulations.gov/, and then follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ``NHTSA-2019-0038.''
II. Vehicles and Tires Involved
Approximately 2,023 Pirelli P7 Cinturato RUN FLAT replacement
radial tires, size 245/45R18 100 Y (the ``subject tires''),
manufactured between April 3, 2017, and February 15, 2019, are
potentially involved.
The subject tires were installed as original equipment on
approximately 206 of the following MY 2018-2019 Mercedes-Benz motor
vehicles, manufactured between May 4, 2017, and February 7, 2019:
2018 Mercedes-Benz E400 4MATIC Cabriolet
2018 Mercedes-Benz E400 Coupe
2018 Mercedes-Benz E400 Cabriolet
2019 Mercedes-Benz E450 4MATIC Cabriolet
2019 Mercedes-Benz E450 Cabriolet
2019 Mercedes-Benz E450 Coupe
2019 Mercedes-Benz E450 4MATIC Coupe
III. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S5.5(c) of FMVSS No. 139, includes the requirements
relevant to the petitions. Each tire must be marked on each sidewall
with the maximum permissible inflation pressure, and in the case of the
subject tires, the maximum permissible inflation pressure must be
followed in parenthesis by the equivalent load rating in pounds,
rounded to the nearest whole number.
IV. Noncompliance
The petitioners explain that the noncompliance is that the subject
tires, manufactured by Pirelli and sold as replacement equipment, as
well as sold by DAG-Mercedes-Benz as original equipment on certain MY
2018-2019 Mercedes-Benz motor vehicles, were erroneously marked with
the incorrect maximum permissible inflation pressure. Therefore, the
tires do not meet the requirements of paragraph S5.5(c) of FMVSS No.
139. Specifically, the subject tires are marked with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 340 kPa, when they should have been
marked with the maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa.
V. Summary of Petitions
The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Petitions,'' are the views and arguments provided by the
petitioners. They do not reflect the views of the Agency. The
petitioners described the subject noncompliance and stated their belief
that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
On January 15, 2019, DAG-Mercedes-Benz received preliminary
information from the Korea Automobile Testing & Research Institute
(KATRI), which indicated that when KATRI tested the subject tires
installed on a DAG-Mercedes-Benz vehicle, using the test specifications
applicable for 340 kPa (the maximum permissible tire pressure that was
indicated on the sidewall of the tire) the tire reportedly failed the
strength test.\2\ DAG-Mercedes-Benz relayed information about KATRI's
test to Pirelli Deutschland GMBH, who informed Pirelli about this
issue. Pirelli subsequently concluded that the subject tires were
erroneously marked with a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 340
kPa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The test was conducted according to the applicable Korean
standard. DAG-Mercedes-Benz stated that the applicable Korean
standard is equivalent to FMVSS No. 139 in all material respects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In support of their petitions, Pirelli and DAG-Mercedes-Benz
submitted the following reasoning:
1. The petitioners cited the following noncompliance petitions that
the Agency has granted previously:
a. DAG-Mercedes-Benz cited Continental Tire the America, LLC, Grant
of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance. See 83 FR
36668, July 30, 2018.
b. Pirelli cited Tireco Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance. See 76 FR 66353, October 26, 2011.
c. The petitioners cited Michelin North America, Grant of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance. See 74 FR 10805, March
12, 2009.
Pirelli highlighted that in the Michelin case, the tire was marked
on one sidewall as having a maximum permissible inflation pressure of
``300 kPa,'' while the other sidewall was marked ``350 kPa.'' In
concluding that this noncompliance was inconsequential to safety, NHTSA
cited the following justifications:
``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.''
2. DAG-Mercedes-Benz stated that the subject tires meet or exceed
all performance and safety requirements for tires with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa, and the mislabeling has no
effect whatsoever on their safety or performance. DAG-Mercedes-Benz
asserted the following:
a. The subject tires were designed and engineered as tires with a
maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa, and they meet or
exceed all of the performance requirements for such tires.
Specifically, the tires meet the applicable specifications contained in
FMVSS No. 139 for tire dimensions under paragraph S6.1, the high-speed
performance test under paragraph S6.2, the tire endurance test under
paragraph S6.3, the low inflation pressure test under paragraph S6.4,
and the bead unseating test applicable under paragraph S6.6 (which
references FMVSS No. 109, paragraph S5.2). These tires also meet the
tire strength test specified for tires with a maximum inflation
pressure of 350 kPa, in accordance with paragraph S6.5 of
[[Page 75692]]
FMVSS No. 139 (which references FMVSS No. 109, paragraph S5.3).
b. Since the subject tires were labeled as having a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 340 kPa rather than 350 kPa, the
tires would be subject to a different strength test specification under
FMVSS No. 139 (which references FMVSS No. 109, paragraph S5.3), which
they were not meant to satisfy.
c. The mislabeling of the subject tires has no effect on vehicle
safety as compared to tires that are properly and correctly labeled
with a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa. The error
does not present any risk of over-inflation since the design maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa is higher than the labeled
inflation pressure of 340 kPa. Additionally, there is no risk of tire
under inflation, since the calculated load-carrying capacity of the
tire at 340 kPa is met and exceeded by the design for 350 kPa.
d. All of the tire load-carrying information labeled on the subject
tires is correct and, in fact, that information understates the load-
carrying capacity of the tires. Since the tires were designed to have a
maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa, according to the
European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization (ETRTO) guidelines, these
tires have a load-carrying capacity that is higher by 15 to 20 kg.
e. 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 a similar case, NHTSA granted an
inconsequentiality petition with respect to two tires, one of which was
mislabeled as having a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350
kPa instead of 300 kPa, and the other tire was mislabeled as having a
maximum permissible inflation pressure of 300 kPa instead of 350
kPa.\3\ As NHTSA has acknowledged, ``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.'' \4\ Both 340 and 350
maximum inflation pressure levels are acceptable choices for this tire
under paragraph S5.5.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, Grant of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 80 FR 31092, June 1,
2015.
\4\ See Michelin North America, Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 74 FR 10805, March 12, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. NHTSA has previously stated that it has retained the requirement
that tires be marked with the maximum permissible inflation pressure
only ``as an aid in preventing over-inflation,'' for which there is no
risk in this case.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Michelin North America, Inc., Grant of Application for
Decision that Noncompliance is Inconsequential to Motor Vehicle
Safety; 70 FR 10161, March 2, 2005 (concluding that ``the
mislabeling issue, in this case, will in no way contribute to the
risk of over-inflation because the value actually marked is lower
than the value required by the regulations'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Pirelli stated that the different tire strength test criteria
for tires marked with a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 340
kPa vs. 350 kPa do not have any real-world safety relevance in this
case.
a. Since these tires are labeled as having a maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 340 kPa rather than 350 kPa, the tires would be
subject to a different strength test criteria under FMVSS No. 109/139,
which they were not meant to satisfy. Due to this labeling error, the
appropriate specification to be applied should be that which is
applicable to the tire as designed, with a maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 350 kPa.
b. FMVSS No. 139, paragraph S6.5 incorporates the tire strength
test requirements of FMVSS No. 109, paragraph S5.3. Specifically, under
the tire strength test in paragraph S5.3 of FMVSS No. 109 (which is
cross-referenced in paragraph S6.5 of FMVSS No. 139), tires with a
maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa should be tested at
180 kPa, while tires with a maximum pressure of 340 kPa should be
tested at 220 kPa.\6\ When tested at these pressures using the test
procedures specified in FMVSS No. 109, a tire with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa must have a minimum breaking
energy of 294 joules, while a tire with a maximum permissible inflation
pressure of 340 kPa must have a minimum breaking energy of 588 joules.
The subject tires have shown a breaking energy of 455 joules, which far
exceeds the requirements for tires marked with a maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 350 kPa (i.e., 54.7% above the required
threshold).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See FMVSS No. 109 New pneumatic and certain specialty tires;
Table II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. The subject tires were developed for a specific DAG-Mercedes-
Benz application and, accordingly, they were subject to and fulfilled a
very stringent DAG-Mercedes-Benz homologation process, including all
customer requirements related to performance, quality and safety
standards.
d. With specific reference to the DAG-Mercedes-Benz applications,
the table below shows the following information for each of the
vehicles for which the tires were fitted as original equipment:
a summary of vehicle weights under ``Normal Load'' and
``Maximum Load'' operating conditions;
the recommended tire inflation pressures for ``Normal
Load'' and ``Maximum Load'' operating conditions reported on each
vehicle's placard;
minimum inflation pressures corresponding to each
vehicle's load condition according to the Tire and Rim Association
standard; and
the minimum inflation pressures corresponding to each load
condition according to the ETRTO standard (as shown at page 8 of
Pirelli's petition \7\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The petition is available in the docket at NHTSA-2019-0038-
0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Either considering the Tire and Rim Association or the ETRTO
standard for the maximum tire load-carrying capacity calculation, a
tire with a load index of 96 ``Standard Load'' would be an appropriate
fitment for each of the identified vehicles and would be more than
sufficient to carry the vehicles' load both under ``Normal Load'' and
``Maximum Load'' conditions. In other words, under the above-reported
operating conditions, an ``Extra Load'' tire with a load index of 100
is not necessary to carry the vehicles' loads.
f. Considering a tire with a load index of 96 ``Standard Load,''
and marked with a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa,
based on the above consideration, for each of the above-mentioned
vehicles, the referenced strength test limit, and testing conditions
are sufficient to achieve all strength test-related standards.
g. The subject tires are self-supporting ``run flat'' tires
designed with a reinforcing element in the sidewall that carries the
vehicle load under zero (0) kPa inflation pressure operating
conditions, thereby avoiding the complete deflection of the tire
sidewall which may lead to the tire rim roll-off. Thus, even in the
event of a failure of the type that the tire strength test was
originally intended to address (i.e., road hazards), the subject tires'
run flat design enables the vehicle to maintain stability, drivability,
and control. Accordingly, there are no safety consequences in the event
of such a failure.
h. The safety of the subject tires has been confirmed through
rigorous testing under different testing methods focused to measure
resistance to accidental impact damage and tire durability.
Neither petitioner is aware of any warranty claims, field reports,
customer complaints, legal claims, or any
[[Page 75693]]
incidents or injuries related to the original or the replacement tires.
VI. Public Comment
NHTSA received one comment from the public.\8\ The commenter posted
anonymously in opposition to NHTSA granting the subject petitions. The
commenter argued that if the petitioners' petitions were to be granted,
it would protect the manufacturers rather than consumers. The commenter
further asserted that most vehicle owners do not know how to properly
check and maintain the air pressure in their tires or understand how
damaging and dangerous under-inflated tires have the potential to be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2019-0038-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. NHTSA's Analysis
A. General Principles
An important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality is
the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise protect.\9\ NHTSA also does not
consider the absence of complaints or injuries to show that the issue
is inconsequential to safety. ``Most importantly, the absence of a
complaint does not mean there have not been any safety issues, nor does
it mean that there will not be safety issues in the future.'' \10\
``[T]he fact that in past reported cases good luck and swift reaction
have prevented many serious injuries does not mean that good luck will
continue to work.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
\10\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12,
2016).
\11\ United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C.
Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk when it
``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire,
and where there is no dispute that at least some such hazards, in
this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in the
future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. NHTSA's Response to the Petitioners' Petitions
NHTSA considered several factors specific to these petitions and
disagrees that mismarking the maximum permissible inflation pressure is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Because the subject tires were marked with a maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 340 kPa, these tires are required to meet the
strength test conditions specified under paragraph S6.5, Tire Strength,
of FMVSS No. 139, which points to the requirements documented in
paragraph S5.3 of FMVSS No. 109. Based on Pirelli's testing and the
sidewall picture Pirelli submitted to the Agency on July 11, 2019, the
tire failed to meet the applicable requirement since it did not reach
the minimum energy levels specified in the FMVSS standard.
Specifically, a tire labeled with a maximum permissible inflation
pressure of 340 kPa must meet or exceed a strength test requirement of
588 joules. Based on the information provided by Pirelli, the subject
tires obtained energy levels up to 486.4 joules, which is significantly
below the minimum requirement of 588 joules. NHTSA's regulations have
different energy level requirements because a tire with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 340 kPa is an ``Extra Load'' tire,
whereas a tire with a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa
is a ``Standard Load'' tire.
Furthermore, based on the picture and information Pirelli provided
to the Agency on July 11, 2019,\12\ NHTSA does not believe that the
only incorrect marking on the tire was the labeling of a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 340 kPa, as Pirelli described in its
petition. The tire was also incorrectly marked as an ``Extra Load''
tire and the maximum load marked on the subject tires is 800 kg (1764
lbs.). This information correlates to a tire designed and manufactured
as a tire having an inflation pressure of 340 kPa according to the 2019
edition of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book.\13\ Therefore, the
tire appears to be marked in multiple ways that would indicate to users
that it is an ``Extra Load'' tire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2019-0038-0005.
\13\ According to the Tire and Rim Association Year Book, 2019
edition, the maximum loading capacity for a tire marked 350 kPa is
710 kg (1565 lbs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tires labeled with either a maximum permissible inflation pressure
of 340 kPa or 350 kPa are both acceptable choices under FMVSS No. 139,
S5.5.4. However, the 340 kPa labeling indicates that a tire can support
a load that is 199 lbs. per tire more than a tire marked with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa. Because the subject tires
were engineered and manufactured to support the maximum load carrying
capacity for a tire marked with a maximum permissible inflation
pressure of 350 kPa, labeling the subject tires with an inflation
pressure of 340 kPa creates the risk that the tires will be overloaded.
For example, a consumer relying on the incorrect labeling may believe
an overload condition of as much as 796 lbs. is safe--even though that
overload poses a risk to motor vehicle safety.
The Michelin petition \14\ for inconsequential noncompliance cited
by the petitioners does not support the petitioners' claims. In the
Michelin case, the Agency concluded that the incorrect labeling on the
tire would not lead to the tire being inadvertently overloaded since
the load on both sidewalls of the tire understates its capability. In
contrast, the petitioners' petitions concern tires that were marked
with information that would likely result in misuse of the tires,
including the risk of overloading the tires. Overloading can lead to
tire failure and resulting loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk
of a crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Michelin North America, Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 74 FR 10805, March 12, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Continental Tire the Americas, LLC's petition for
inconsequential noncompliance,\15\ which the petitioners cited does not
support the petitioners' claims. In that petition, the tires in
question were labeled with both 300 kPa and 350 kPa. Tires having both
of these labels are tested using the same test inflation pressures and
must comply with the same energy levels since both pressures are in
reference to a ``Standard Load'' tire. In the petitioners' case, the
tires are marked as ``Extra Load'' tires instead of ``Standard Load''
tires--thus distinguishing the petitioners' labeling error from the
Continental Tire the Americas, LLC's petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, Grant of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 83 FR 36668, July 30,
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Tireco Inc. petition \16\ the maximum permissible inflation
pressures in kPa and PSI were reversed (i.e., the kPa number was
labeled as PSI and the PSI number was labeled as kPa). The Agency
concluded the incorrect labeling of the tire inflation information will
not have any consequential effect on motor vehicle safety because it is
unlikely a vehicle owner would inflate the tires to the incorrectly
labeled pressure because it was so obviously incorrect. Whereas, with
respect to the petitioners' error, the incorrect markings on the
subject tires are not obviously incorrect, and therefore, are likely to
be
[[Page 75694]]
relied upon by vehicle owners in a way that poses a risk to motor
vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Tireco, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 76 FR 66353, October 26, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners state that they do not foresee any safety issues
due to consumers over-inflating the tires since a maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 350 kPa is a higher pressure than the 340 kPa
that is erroneously labeled on the subject tires--since the tires were
engineered to sustain the higher of the two inflation pressures. NHTSA
agrees with the petitioners on this one limited point; however,
agreement on this one limited point does not affect NHTSA's ultimate
decision to deny the petitions.
According to the Tire and Rim Association Year Book (2019), a tire
for this size designation should have a load index of 96. The words
``Extra Load'' emphasizes that the tire has been marked or labeled with
a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 340 kPa which corresponds
to a load index of 100. Based on the sidewall pictures, the subject
tires were also mistakenly labeled with a load index of 100, which
pertains to an ``Extra Load'' tire or a tire with a maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 340 kPa. For these reasons, the Agency believes
that the tire was not correctly marked with respect to the load index
labeling information and, therefore, misleads the public and vehicle
owners as to the appropriate usage of the tire.
Even though the subject tires meet rigorous testing under the FMVSS
and other methods employed by DAG-Mercedes-Benz, like the curb test,
maximum pressure resistance (static blow out test), rim roll-off test,
fatigue test, run-flat mileage test, rapid loss of inflation and lane
change test, integrity tests, etc., that does not negate the fact that
these tires must also meet the strength test according to FMVSS No.
139, section S6.5.1, Tire Strength Test for Passenger Car Tires.
Furthermore, Pirelli seems to recognize that the subject tires fail to
meet the minimum requirements under the FMVSS for a tire labeled with a
maximum permissible inflation pressure of 340 kPa.
Finally, for a tire with a load index of 100, the energy level--as
referenced in FMVSS No. 109--is 588 joules on Table I-C Radial Ply
Tires for ``Extra Load'' tires. The subject tires failed to meet this
required energy level, pursuant to FMVSS No. 139/FMVSS No. 109.
For the above-stated reasons, the Agency finds that the subject
noncompliance is consequential to motor vehicle safety.
VIII. NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has determined that DAG-
Mercedes-Benz and Pirelli have not met their burden of persuasion that
the subject FMVSS No. 139 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. Accordingly, DAG-Mercedes-Benz's and Pirelli's
petitions are hereby denied, and DAG-Mercedes-Benz and Pirelli are
consequently obligated to provide notification of and 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.)
Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022-26769 Filed 12-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P