
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 37 (Friday, February 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11190-11191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4296]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0115; Notice 2]


Yokohama Tire Company, Denial of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Petition Denial.

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

SUMMARY: Yokohama Tire Company (YTC),\1\ has determined that certain 
P215/60R15 93H AVID H4S passenger car replacement tires failed to 
comply with paragraph S5.5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. YTC has 
filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and 
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports (dated January 21, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Yokohama Tire Company (YTC) is a replacement equipment 
manufacturer incorporated in the State of California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule 
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, YTC 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 YTC's petition was published, with a 30-day 
public comment period, on August 20, 2010, in the Federal Register (75 
FR 51524). 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-2010-0115.''

Contact Information

    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.

Summary of YTC's Petition

    YTC petitioned NHTSA for a determination that a noncompliance in 
approximately 6,254 \2\ P215/60R15 93H AVID H4S passenger car 
replacement tires that were manufactured in YTC's Salem, Virginia 
manufacturing plant during the period December 2, 2007 through 
September 19, 2009, is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ YTC's petition identified 7,836 affected tires. Subsequent 
to filing its petition, YTC notified NHTSA that the actual number of 
affected tires is 6,254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    YTC describes the noncompliance as a labeling error that omits the 
Tire Identification Number (TIN)/partial TIN required by paragraph 
S5.5.1 on one of the tire sidewalls. YTC indicates that the 
noncompliant tires do however include the full TIN on the intended 
outboard sidewall.
    YTC argues that the TIN and the partial TIN are used to properly 
identify tires that are involved in a safety campaign. YTC also stated 
its belief that the full TIN is molded on the intended outboard 
sidewall of these tires and consumers could be directed to have both 
sidewalls inspected for the TIN if any safety campaign would be 
required for these tires in the future.
    YTC also explained that all of the subject tires have been tested 
and certified compliant with all of the durability requirements of 
FMVSS No. 139 for high speed, endurance and low inflation pressure 
performance. The tires also meet all of the physical dimension, 
resistance to bead unseating and strength requirements of FMVSS No. 
139.
    In addition, YTC indicated that warranty and claim data for the 
subject tires reveals a very small number of tire warranty returns, and 
no reports of claims associated with accidents or tire failure 
incidents.
    YTC also informed NHTSA that it has corrected the problem that 
caused this noncompliance.
    In summation, YTC asserts that this noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because the noncompliant 
sidewall marking does not affect the physical characteristics of the 
tires and all other labeling requirements have been met. Therefore, no 
corrective action is warranted.

NHTSA Decision

    NHTSA does not agree with YTC's assessment that the noncompliance 
with FMVSS No. 139 is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. As 
discussed below, the tire markings required by paragraph S5.5.1 of 
FMVSS No. 139 provide valuable information to assist consumers in 
determining if their tires are the subject of a safety recall.
    Paragraph S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 139 requires that radial tires 
manufactured

[[Page 11191]]

on or after September 1, 2009 for motor vehicles having a gross vehicle 
weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less be permanently labeled 
with: (1) A full TIN required by 49 CFR part 574 on the intended 
outboard sidewall of the tire; (2) except for retreaded tires, either 
the full or a partial TIN containing all characters in the TIN, except 
for the date code, and at the discretion of the manufacturer, any 
optional code, must be labeled on the other sidewall of the tire.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Tires manufactured after September 1, 2009 must be labeled 
with the TIN on the intended outboard sidewall of a tire and either 
the TIN or partial TIN on the other sidewall. 49 CFR 571.139 
S5.5.1(b). If a tire manufactured after September 1, 2009 does not 
have an intended outboard sidewall, one sidewall must be labeled 
with the TIN and the other sidewall must have either a TIN or 
partial TIN. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tire recalls in the year 2000 highlighted the difficulty that 
consumers experienced when attempting to determine whether a tire is 
subject to a recall when a tire is mounted so that the sidewall bearing 
the TIN faces inward i.e., underneath the vehicle. After a series of 
Congressional hearings about the safety of and experiences regarding 
the tires involved in those recalls, Congress passed and the President 
signed into law the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, 
and Documentation (TREAD) Act on November 1, 2000. Public Law 106-414. 
114 Stat. 1800.
    One matter addressed by the TREAD Act was tire labeling. Section 11 
of the TREAD Act required a rulemaking to improve the labeling of tires 
to assist consumers in identifying tires that may be the subject of a 
recall.
    In response to the TREAD Act's mandate, NHTSA published a final 
rule that, among other things, required that the TIN be placed on a 
sidewall of the tire and a full or partial TIN be placed on the other 
sidewall. See 67 FR 69600, 69628 (November 18, 2002), as amended 69 FR 
31306 (June 3, 2004). In the preamble to the 2002 final rule, the 
agency identified the safety problem which prompted the issuance of the 
rule. 67 FR at 69602, 69606, and 69610. The agency explained that when 
tires are mounted so that the TIN appears on the inward facing 
sidewalls, motorists have three difficult and inconvenient options for 
locating and recording the TINs. Consumers must either: (1) Slide under 
the vehicle with a flashlight, pencil and paper and search the inside 
sidewalls for the TINs; (2) remove each tire, find and record the TIN, 
and then replace the tire; or (3) enlist the aid of a garage or service 
station that can perform option 1 or place the vehicle on a vehicle 
lift so that the TINs can be found and recorded. If the tires were 
mounted with the intended outward sidewall facing inboard, the intended 
inboard sidewall would be facing outboard and the TIN would not be 
visible. Without any TIN information on the outside sidewalls of tires, 
the difficulty and inconvenience of obtaining the TIN by consumers 
reduces the number of people who respond to a tire recall campaign and 
increases the number of motorists who unknowingly continue to drive 
vehicles with potentially unsafe tires.
    YTC suggests that this noncompliance does not preclude motorists 
from checking the inboard sidewall if the TIN is not found on the 
outboard sidewall. This approach is inadequate. The noncompliance here 
is the exact problem that plagued millions of tire owners in 2000 and 
one that Congress mandated that NHTSA address. When the TIN is placed 
on one sidewall of a tire and that sidewall is mounted on the inboard 
side of a wheel, it is very difficult and inconvenient for the consumer 
to locate and record the TIN. In such situations, consumers who attempt 
to determine if a tire is within the scope of a recall may not be able 
to read the inboard sidewall without taking one of the three 
inconvenient steps discussed above. The difficulty and inconvenience of 
locating a TIN under these circumstances poses serious impediments to 
the successful recall of the noncompliant tires, which may result in 
motorists continuing to drive their vehicles with potentially unsafe 
tires.
    While NHTSA has determined in the past that in some instances TIN 
marking omissions were inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, those 
determinations occurred prior to the adoption of FMVSS No. 139 pursuant 
to the TREAD Act. Following the enactment of the TREAD Act, NHTSA found 
that there is a safety need for a full TIN on one sidewall and a full 
or partial TIN on the other sidewall. For these reasons, FMVSS No. 139 
now requires TIN markings on both sidewalls of a tire so that consumers 
can readily determine if a tire is subject to a safety recall.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the 
petitioner has not met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance 
described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, 
YTC's petition is hereby denied, and the petitioner must notify owners, 
purchasers and dealers pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and provide a remedy 
in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30120.

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

    Issued on: February 16, 2012.
Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2012-4296 Filed 2-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


