Denial of Motor Vehicle Recall Petition, 6038-6042 [E7-2103]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
6038
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
grant funding must be submitted
electronically to FMCSA through the
grants.gov Web site.
Section 4126 of SAFETEA–LU
distinguishes between two types of
CVISN projects: Core and Expanded. To
be eligible for funding of Core CVISN
deployment project(s), a State must have
its most current Core CVISN Program
Plan and Top-Level Design approved by
FMCSA and the proposed project(s)
should be consistent with its approved
Core CVISN Program Plan and TopLevel Design.
A State may also apply for funds to
prepare an Expanded CVISN Program
Plan and Top-Level Design if FMCSA
acknowledged the staff as having
completed Core CVISN deployment. In
order to be eligible for funding of any
Expanded CVISN deployment project(s),
a State must have its most current
Expanded CVISN Program Plan and
Top-Level Design approved by FMCSA
and any proposed Expanded CVISN
project(s) should be consistent with its
Expanded CVISN Program Plan and
Top-Level Design.
DATES: FMCSA will initially consider
funding for applications submitted by
March 31, 2007 by qualified applicants.
If additional funding remains available,
applications submitted after March 31,
2007 will be considered on a case-bycase basis. A portion of the funds is
available for allocation as limited by the
Continuing Resolution (Pub. L. 109–
383). The remainder of funds will be
available when fiscal year 2007
appropriations legislation is passed and
signed into law.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Visit
grants.gov. Information on the grant,
application process, and additional
contact information is available at that
Web site.
General information about the CVISN
grant is available in The Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)
which can be found on the Internet at
https://www.cfda.gov. The CFDA number
for CVISN is 20.237.
You also may contact Mr. Quon
Kwan, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, Office of Research and
Analysis, Division of Technology, email: quon.kwan@dot.gov, telephone:
202–385–2389, 400 Virginia Avenue,
SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024.
Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Issued on: January 31, 2007.
John H. Hill,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7–2055 Filed 2–7–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:58 Feb 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Denial of Motor Vehicle Recall Petition
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Denial of a petition for an
investigation into alleged defects in
Firestone Steeltex tires.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice denies a petition
submitted to NHTSA under 49 U.S.C.
30162 by the Law Offices of Lisoni &
Lisoni of Pasadena, California. The
petition requests that the agency open a
safety-related defect investigation into
alleged defects in Firestone Steeltex
tires manufactured from 1999 through
2005 in four Firestone plants located in
Joliette, Canada; Aiken, South Carolina;
Decatur, Illinois; and Cuernavaca,
Mexico. After review of the information
submitted by the petitioners and other
pertinent information, NHTSA has
concluded that further expenditure of
the agency’s investigative resources on
the issues raised by the petition does
not appear warranted.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Derek Rinehardt, Safety Defects
Engineer, Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI), NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:
(202) 366–3642.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Petition Review—DP06–001
1.0 Introduction
On May 1, 2006, the Law Offices of
Lisoni & Lisoni (petitioners) submitted a
petition requesting that the Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) open an
investigation of Firestone Steeltex tires
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30162, and issue
a recall order pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118(b), 30119 and 30120. This
petition was denominated as DP06–001.
Petitioners submitted some additional
information on June 23, 2006.
Under 49 U.S.C. 30166, NHTSA has
the authority to conduct an
investigation to consider whether a
motor vehicle or equipment contains a
safety-related defect. 49 U.S.C. 30118(b)
authorizes NHTSA to make a
determination that a motor vehicle or
motor vehicle equipment contains a
defect related to motor vehicle safety. If
NHTSA makes such a determination,
NHTSA issues an order directing the
manufacturer of the vehicle or
equipment to give notification of the
defect to the owners, purchasers and
dealers and to remedy the defect under
49 U.S.C. 30120. Collectively, the
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
manufacturer’s notice and provision of
a remedy under section 30120 are
known as a recall.
ODI has an ongoing review process in
which it reviews consumer complaints
and data submitted by manufacturers in
an effort to identify defect trends. If this
ongoing review of information were to
reveal possible defect trends in Steeltex
or any other tires, ODI would open an
investigation, as it does on scores of
vehicle and equipment issues every year
when the available evidence so
warrants. In addition, any interested
person may, under section 30162, file a
petition requesting that NHTSA begin a
proceeding to decide whether to issue
an order under section 30118.
As a practical matter, the granting of
a petition under section 30162 begins an
investigation. An investigation may or
may not result in a recall. In
determining whether to grant or deny a
petition under 30162, NHTSA conducts
a technical review of the petition. 49
CFR 552.6. The technical review may
consist of an analysis of the material
submitted together with the information
already in the possession of the agency.
It may also include the collection of
additional information. NHTSA has
discretion in deciding which matters are
worthy of investigation and possible
recall order. In addition to the technical
merits of the petition, NHTSA may
consider additional factors, such as the
allocation of agency resources, agency
priorities, and the likelihood of success
in litigation that might arise from the
order sought by the petitioner. 49 CFR
552.8. As noted above, if NHTSA grants
the petition, an investigation is
commenced to determine the existence
of the defect. 49 CFR 552.9.
Motor vehicle tires are items of
equipment subject to a recall order
under section 30118 if they contain a
defect related to motor vehicle safety.
Were NHTSA to issue an order directing
the recall of tires under that section, the
agency would have the burden of
demonstrating the existence of the
defect and that the defect is safetyrelated. One possible indicator of a
defective tire is an excessively high rate
of failures compared to other,
comparable tire lines. However, not
every tire failure is the result of a defect
in the tire. Tires may fail for a variety
of reasons, such as improper
maintenance and impact damage from
road hazards. Moreover, because not all
tires with the same broad label (e.g.,
‘‘Steeltex’’) are constructed in exactly
the same way or designed for the same
function, NHTSA often focuses on
whether any specific grouping of
similarly constructed tires (e.g.,
distinguished by tire line, tire size, and/
E:\FR\FM\08FEN1.SGM
08FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Notices
or date and location of manufacture) is
defective. DP06–001 is a broad and
sweeping petition that covers a number
of different tires. NHTSA could not base
a recall order merely on a generalized
allegation that an enormous population
of tires is defective. Instead, NHTSA
must carefully review the details
underlying such an allegation to
determine whether the facts provide a
basis for agency action.
ODI began a technical review of
DP06–001 on May 24, 2006. During the
review, ODI:
• Analyzed data within its own
Vehicle Owners Questionnaire (VOQ)
database;
• Analyzed early warning reporting
(EWR) data submitted by all tire
manufacturers since December 2003;
• Requested and analyzed data
pertaining to Steeltex tire performance
from Bridgestone-Firestone North
American Tire, LLC (Firestone);
• Analyzed the petition contents and
additional data requested from the
petitioners;
• Reviewed prior petitions submitted
by petitioners: DP02–011, DP04–004
and DP04–005.
Based on this technical review,
NHTSA has concluded that the petition
should be denied.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
2.0
Background
DP06–001 is the fourth petition
submitted by the petitioners asking the
agency to open a defect investigation
into Steeltex tires. In addition to the
four petitions from the petitioners, the
agency has reviewed Steeltex tire data
in two other instances, as discussed in
more detail below.
The scope of the current petition
involves over 23 and a half million
Steeltex tires in three load ranges (C, D,
and E), three tire lines (all terrain (A/T)
and all season (R4S and R4SII)), and in
twelve sizes 1 manufactured since 1999
at four plants (Joliette, Canada; Aiken,
South Carolina; Decatur, Illinois and
Cuernavaca, Mexico). Steeltex is a
model name applied to the majority of
light truck radial tires that Firestone
sold beginning in about 1990. Steeltex
tires have been the primary original
equipment (OE) tire on many of the
largest passenger vans, sport utility
vehicles (SUVs), pickup trucks, and
‘‘cutaways’’ (including motor homes
and ambulances) sold since 1990.
1 The twelve tire sizes are: 7.00R15LT,
7.50R16LT, 8.00R16.5LT, 8.75R16.5LT,
9.50R16.5LT, LT215/75R15, LT215/85R16, LT225/
75R16, LT235/75R15, LT235/85R16, LT245/75R16,
LT265/75R16.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:58 Feb 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
However, they are no longer in
production.2
Load Range E (LRE) tires represent the
largest population of Steeltex tires
manufactured from 1999 through
2005—accounting for approximately
eighty-three percent of the Steeltex tires
produced. LRE tires may be inflated up
to 80 psi and can carry between 2,500
lbs and 3,400 lbs per tire. LRE tires have
the highest load rating among the three
load ranges of Steeltex tires. LRE tires
are also used in more diverse
applications and operate under more
severe duty conditions and higher loads
than the lesser load range tires (Load
Range C and Load Range D).
Steeltex tires are light truck radial
(LTR) tires comprised of two polyester
body plies and two steel belts. LTR tires
are distinguished from passenger radial
(PSR) tires by having heavier cord
gauges, thicker rubber plies, deeper
tread depths, and substantially higher
inflation pressures. Within the
population of Steeltex tires there exists
a variety of designs that include obvious
differences such as tread pattern,
sidewall configuration, and tire size, as
well as differences in internal
construction such as cord configuration,
cord gauge, cord angle, and mold shape.
ODI initiated its first investigation
(PE00–040) of Steeltex tires on
September 9, 2000. PE00–040 was
closed on April 9, 2002. This
investigation revealed that Steeltex tires
displayed failure rates comparable to
and, in some instances, lower than those
of LTR tires sold by other major
manufacturers. ODI also noted that the
vehicle type had the largest influence on
the likelihood of a tire failure causing a
vehicle crash.
ODI revisited the issue of Steeltex tire
failures during its review of the
petitioners’ November 2002 petition
(DP02–011). Petitioners alleged that all
Steeltex tires manufactured since 1990
were defective, that ODI had
undercounted VOQs in its database, and
that Firestone had deliberately
understated its failure figures. ODI
denied DP02–011after finding that VOQ
and Firestone data had changed little
since the closing of PE00–040 and that
no specific defect trend was identified.
See 68 FR 35941 (June 17, 2003).
Based in part on EWR data, Firestone
announced on February 26, 2004, that it
would recall 3 approximately 487,000
LT265/75R16 Load Range D Steeltex A/
T tires manufactured primarily for OE
fitment on MY 2000–2003 Ford
Excursion SUVs. At that time, EWR and
2 Firestone phased out the production of the
various Steeltex tire lines between 2004 and 2005.
3 NHTSA Recall # 04T–003.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6039
other data did not indicate a defect
trend in Steeltex tires outside of this
recalled population.
ODI again revisited the subject of
Steeltex tire failures in May of 2004
after petitioners filed two more defect
petitions (DP04–004 and DP04–005).
The petitions alleged that all Steeltex
tires manufactured since 1995 were
defective (DP04–004) and that Steeltex
tires installed as OE on ambulances
pose an unacceptable safety risk to
Emergency Medical Service (EMS)
operators (DP04–005). NHTSA issued a
notice denying both petitions on
September 29, 2004. See 69 FR 58221.
NHTSA concluded that no defect trend
existed as the Steeltex tires’ failure rates
did not stand out from those of their
peers.
3.0 Petition Allegations—DP06–001
Overall, petitioners’ allegations in
DP06–001 are not new—they primarily
restate assertions from DP04–004 and
DP04–005. As in those prior petitions,
the petitioners do not point to a
particular defect or failure mode.
Rather, they contend that various
failures lead to the conclusion that the
entire population of subject tires is
generally defective. Further, petitioners
devote nearly the entire May 2006
petition attempting to rebut particular
points made in NHTSA’s September 29,
2004 notice denying their prior petitions
(DP04–004 and DP04–005). One
noticeable difference between their
prior petitions and DP06–001 is that
petitioners have narrowed the scope of
DP06–001. Petitioners now ask the
agency to open a defect investigation
into Steeltex R4S, R4S II and A/T tires
manufactured from 1999 to 2005 in
Firestone’s Decatur, Aiken, Joliette and
Mexico manufacturing plants, excluding
tires previously recalled under recall
04T–003. Even with this limitation,
there are more than 23 million tires
within the scope of the petition.
The petitioners provide limited
information in support of DP06–001.4
The petition includes a list of 57
fatalities and 161 injuries allegedly
resulting from ‘‘serious’’ design and
manufacturing defects in the subject
tires. The total includes a composite
number of fatalities and injuries from a
list of incidents compiled by the
petitioners (non-VOQ incidents) and
those that petitioners identified from
VOQs submitted to NHTSA. As
explained below, ODI’s review of these
allegations revealed numerous
4 Petitioners provided two submissions to the
agency. First, on May 1, 2006, they submitted
materials with their petition. Second, on June 23,
2006, they submitted a response to ODI’s request for
more information.
E:\FR\FM\08FEN1.SGM
08FEN1
6040
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Notices
inconsistencies and indicated that the
vast majority of the alleged deaths and
injuries were not within the scope of
this petition.
On May 25, 2006, ODI requested more
information detailing the specific failure
modes and specific descriptions of all
defect conditions alleged by the
petitioners. The petitioners’ June 23,
2006 response noted that an earlier list
of supposedly relevant incidents
submitted in March 2003 should be
disregarded. However, the June 23, 2006
letter largely restated the information
provided in the March 2003 letter,
which was a supplement to their initial
petition, DP02–011. A limited number
of new alleged incidents were reported
by the petitioners in their June 23, 2006
letter, but several did not fall within the
scope of the current petition.5
Petitioners said in that letter that they
would provide additional
documentation of several of the deaths
and injuries but, as of this writing, have
not done so.
As in prior petitions, the petitioners
refer to Firestone’s mid-1990s C95 cost
reduction program 6 to support their
contention that tire quality degraded,
causing numerous defects with Steeltex
tires. Petitioners did not provide any
new evidence supporting their
contention that implementation of the
C95 program degraded manufacturing
quality at the four Firestone plants
identified in their petition. Firestone
contends that many of the
recommendations in the C95 program
were never implemented and that the
changes that were implemented did not
have any adverse effect on tire
performance. ODI did not find any
evidence that would link the C95 cost
reduction program to any defect in
Steeltex tires.
4.0
DP06–001 Analysis
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
4.1 Information Submitted by
Petitioners
Petitioners’ central allegation in
DP06–001 is that Steeltex tires have
caused 57 deaths and 161 injuries since
1999. ODI has carefully reviewed the
list to verify the petitioners’ allegations
and to determine which of the alleged
5 For example, the petitioners list an incident
from June 30, 2002, involving 5 individuals (three
fatalities and two injuries). The incident was
determined to involve Michelin tires, not Firestone
tires.
6 The C95 program was a Firestone program
designed to improve manufacturing efficiencies and
productivity at its manufacturing plants, as noted
in detail in prior petitions (DP04–004 and DP04–
005). Information concerning C95 was submitted by
the petitioners to ODI in April 2003 during ODI’s
technical review of DP02–011. The documents
submitted included a list of 153 potential costreduction recommendations.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:58 Feb 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
deaths and injuries are actually relevant
to the tires that are the subject of the
petition and, of those, which had not
previously been considered by NHTSA
in connection with the petitioners’
previous petitions. Only by sorting out
which allegations are within the scope
of the present petition can we determine
whether that petition provides a basis
for the requested action.
The petitioners’ list of deaths and
injuries includes multiple duplicate
incidents 7, incidents that did not
involve a tire failure 8, incidents
involving tires not manufactured by
Firestone 9, incidents involving tires
manufactured prior to 1999 10, incidents
involving tires that have been
previously recalled under recall number
04T–003 11, and incidents allegedly
involving injuries that were determined
to in fact not involve any injuries.12
Additionally, petitioners overstate the
number of relevant complaints and
related deaths and injuries in ODI’s
VOQ database. They cite to one VOQ
(10007251) that allegedly documents 18
fatalities and 27 injuries associated with
Steeltex tire failures. In a press release
submitted to the agency on May 2, 2006,
the petitioners state that this VOQ is
‘‘perhaps the most shocking’’ of the
complaints to NHTSA and that it
7 For example, the petitioners counted separately
three VOQs (10095168, 10090258 and 10098938)
that were related to the same incident alleging an
injury. In addition, the subject tire was
manufactured in 1997, which is outside the scope
of the petition. Also, the petitioners list VOQ
555477 as a unique incident but that was a
duplicate of VOQ 10002751.
8 For example, five firefighters were counted in
the fifty-seven fatalities alleged by the petitioners to
be a result of a Steeltex tire failure. However,
published reports indicate that the incident was
caused by driver error (the driver was found guilty
of careless driving), not a tire failure. Also,
petitioners count an injury reported through VOQ
8000804, which cites engine stall, not a tire failure.
9 For example: (a) the petitioners included four
injuries associated with VOQ 560738, although the
subject tire of the incident was determined to be a
Goodyear Wrangler Radial LT245/75R16, and (b)
one incident from the petitioners’ list involving
three fatalities and two injuries was determined to
involve a Michelin tire.
10 For example, petitioners included: (a) four
alleged injuries associated with VOQ 865772,
which references a tire manufactured in 1997; and
(b) one injury alleged in VOQ 868962 that
references an incident with a date (February 12,
1994) that is not within the scope of the petition.
11 For example: (a) an incident from the
petitioners’ list involving a 2000 Ford Excursion
alleging five serious injuries was determined to
involve a tire that fell within the scope of recall
04T–003; and (b) the petitioners counted four
injuries associated with VOQ 10060714, although
the tires fell within the scope of the recall 04T–003.
12 For example: (a) the petitioners counted five
injuries associated with VOQ 748712, although the
VOQ’s narrative states ‘‘luckily, no one was
injured’’; and (b) the petitioners counted one injury
associated with VOQ 10146790, although the VOQ
notes ‘‘0 injuries and 0 fatalities’’.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
‘‘documents a tire tread belt failure
resulting in eighteen deaths and twentyseven injuries’’. Actually this VOQ does
not document an incident where a
single tread belt failure resulted in
eighteen deaths and twenty-seven
injuries. The VOQ was previously
submitted by petitioners in March 2003
and consists of a compilation of deaths
and injuries alleged by the petitioners to
have occurred in several different
incidents. ODI’s analysis of the
incidents listed in this VOQ found that
many of the incidents could not be
validated, including some incidents that
involved vehicles that would not
normally be fitted with light truck radial
tires as well as some that involved
Steeltex tires outside the scope of the
petition (i.e., prior to 1999). ODI
confirmed that only three incidents
(three injuries) alleged by VOQ
10007251 were within the scope of
DP06–001. When ODI requested
additional information about the March
2003 submission, the petitioners
indicated that it should be ignored
because it was superseded by DP06–
001.
When all of the unrelated incidents
and incidents associated with tires that
are not within the scope of the petition
are removed from the list submitted by
petitioners, what remains are allegations
of 6 fatalities and 43 injuries occurring
over a period of six years. When, based
on ODI’s own research, data from
Firestone and ODI were added, the
totals were 19 fatalities and 209 injuries
involving the approximately 23 million
tires within the scope of DP06–001. As
discussed above, these data include all
tire-related crashes resulting in death or
injury irrespective of whether a defect
was identified in the tire.
Contrary to the petition’s assertion of
an increasing trend in such severe
crashes, the data show that the trend of
crashes involving deaths and injuries
involving Steeltex tires is actually
declining, with 82 percent fewer in 2005
than in 2003. Just 5 of the fatalities and
23 of the injuries occurred in the two
years since ODI denied DP04–004 and
DP04–005 from the petitioners in 2004.
4.2 VOQs Since the Denial of DP04–
004 and DP04–005
In order to appropriately analyze
DP06–001, ODI conducted a broad
search of its VOQ database for any
Steeltex tire-related complaints received
since the September 29, 2004 denial of
DP04–004 and DP04–005. Since the
denial of those petitions, ODI has
received 131 VOQs alleging a failure of
a Steeltex tire. Forty-two VOQs were
associated with tires that did not fall
within the scope of DP06–001. Fifty-two
E:\FR\FM\08FEN1.SGM
08FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Notices
VOQs alleged Steeltex tire failures, but
did not provide sufficient information
in the VOQ to determine whether the
tire fell within the scope of this
petition.13
Thirty-seven VOQs received since the
closure of DP04–004 and DP04–005
appeared to be within the scope of the
present petition. However, of the 37
VOQs, 14 involved tires that were
within the population of Steeltex tires
recalled in 04T–003. Those previously
recalled tires are not within the scope of
this petition. Eliminating the 14
complaints for tires that have been
recalled leaves 23 complaints that ODI
has verified as within the scope this
petition. Of the remaining 23
complaints, two involved alleged
crashes that resulted in two minor
injuries. While ODI is always concerned
when a crash is alleged to have
occurred, examination of the complaint
data, particularly in light of the large
population of Steeltex tires, again
demonstrates that the complaint rates
for Steeltex tires are comparable to other
tires. These rates do not indicate that a
defect trend exists.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
4.3 EWR Data
ODI began receiving EWR data from
all major tire manufacturers in
December of 2003. This includes data
on production, death and injury claims
and notices, property damage claims,
and warranty adjustments.
ODI used two approaches to analyze
EWR data. First, it analyzed the data in
a manner similar to how the petitioners
suggest a review of Steeltex tires should
be conducted: By performing an
analysis of Steeltex tire data in their
entirety and comparing them to data on
other major tire brands manufactured by
other major light truck tire
manufacturers. Second, ODI performed
an analysis of Steeltex tires by specific
tire line, tire size, and production years.
Neither analysis identified a trend
indicating a safety related issue. In fact,
both analyses show downward trends
since the third quarter of 2003, as
previously noted.
ODI analyzed data on claims and
notices involving a death or injury.
Based on EWR data through the second
quarter of 2006, the fatality and injury
rates are showing a downward trend.
13 For some of the VOQs submitted by petitioners,
ODI was unable determine if the tire reported fell
within the scope of DP06–001. ODI made attempts
to contact the consumers to obtain accurate DOT
numbers of the reported tires. ODI could not
determine if the reported tires fell within the scope
of DP06–001 due to one or more of the following
reasons: invalid or unknown tire information (DOT
numbers) or incorrect or inadequate consumer
contact information to obtain the correct DOT
number.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:58 Feb 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
Our analysis revealed that Steeltex tires
within the scope of DP06–001 were
below the industry average for the rate
of claims and notices of death for light
truck tires. Other major light truck tire
manufacturers had higher fatality rates.
With respect to rates for claims and
notices involving an injury, Steeltex tire
rates were slightly above the industry
average; however, they did not stand out
when compared to peer manufacturers
(i.e. those with the largest volumes).
Other major light truck tire
manufacturers had higher rates for
injuries. In addition, the trends of
crashes involving Steeltex tires and
resulting in death or injury have
declined significantly in recent years,
dropping by 82 percent from 2003 to
2005.
Analysis of severe crash (injurious
and fatal) rates by tire line, tire size, and
production years found that no Steeltex
tire that ranked among the top 30
highest rates for light truck radial tires
for the production years within the
scope of the petition. In contrast to the
tires recalled under 04T–003, the tires
analyzed in DP06–001 with the highest
fatality and injury rates where six times
lower and four times lower,
respectively, than the tires that were
subject of the recall.
ODI’s analysis of EWR data through
the second quarter of 2006 revealed that
the property damage claim rate for
Steeltex tires as a whole is very close to
and in many cases below the light truck
radial (LTR) tire class average. An
analysis of property damage and
warranty adjustment rates by tire line,
tire size and production year found no
single Steeltex tire ranked among the
top 20 highest rates for light truck radial
tires for production years within the
scope of the petition. Several other
major light truck tire manufacturers
have higher rates of property damage
claims than Steeltex tires. Also, overall,
property damage claims have shown a
downward trend since calendar year
2003 for Steeltex tires. The data do not
support a defect trend.
4.4 Firestone Data
ODI reviewed data on thousands of
property damage and warranty
adjustment claims, as well as lawsuits,
injury and fatality claims and notices
related to Steeltex tires produced
between 1999 and 2005 submitted by
Firestone. As with the prior petitions,
LRE tires account for the vast majority
of the Firestone claims. This reflects the
large population of LRE tires in use,
which exceeds the populations of the
other load ranges identified by
petitioners. In addition to such a large
population, higher claims result from
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6041
the severe duty conditions under which
LRE tires typically operate. When
compared to similar tires manufactured
by other light truck tire manufacturers,
Steeltex tires do not stand out. In fact,
ODI’s analysis of data submitted by
Firestone and peer data from EWR
indicate that the Steeltex tires perform
at rates similar to those of the rest of the
industry and compare favorably to at
least two other major light truck tire
manufacturers.
5.0 Discussion
This is the fourth petition filed by the
petitioners requesting that NHTSA reopen its investigation into Steeltex tires.
In response to the petitioners’ last two
petitions, the agency conducted a
thorough assessment that included,
among other things, the physical
examination of Steeltex tires and the
hiring of an independent expert to
examine Steeltex tires. See 69 FR 58221,
58222. During the course of that
technical review, the agency expended
considerable resources to decide
whether to open a new investigation on
Steeltex tires. After the review, the
agency did not identify a potential
safety-related defect trend and,
therefore, denied the petitions.
In the present petition, DP06–001,
petitioners provided NHTSA with very
little new data. Instead, they relied
generally upon their past assertions that
the totality of the complaints supports
the finding of a defect trend. Petitioners’
list of documented incidents of fatalities
and injuries was marked by
inconsistencies between what
petitioners alleged and the actual facts
of the incidents. Once the incidents that
were not actually within the scope of
the petition were removed, only three
fatal crashes and 21 injurious crashes
remained that were unknown to NHTSA
at the time the agency issued its
decisions on the previous petitions in
September 2004. Other than this small
number of incidents alleging a defect in
Steeltex tires, the petitioners did not
offer any further support that was not
previously addressed by NHTSA in
prior defect petitions. This small
number of incidents, in such a large
population of over 23 and a half million
tires, does not evidence a defect trend.
Additionally, petitioners did not
provide evidence of or identify a
particular failure mode that would be
indicative of performance issues that
ODI could analyze and potentially
confirm through its analysis of the
available data. Contrary to the
petitioners’ broad assertion of a defect
trend based upon various failure modes,
the analysis of the available data does
not identify a discrete failure mode that
E:\FR\FM\08FEN1.SGM
08FEN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
6042
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Notices
amounts to a potential safety-related
trend.
The agency once again has spent
considerable resources considering
whether to re-open a defects
investigation into Steeltex tires. ODI
analyzed the available data for evidence
of a possible source and mode of failure
of the subject tires, including data
submitted by the petitioners, VOQ and
EWR data, Firestone’s claim and
adjustment data for the subject tires,
owner complaints to ODI since the close
of the prior petitions, and data available
from the agency’s prior technical
reviews of Steeltex tire petitions.
The Steeltex tires within the scope of
DP06–001 represent an immense and
diverse population of tires totaling over
23 million tires distributed over 63
different tire line, size and
manufacturing plant combinations that
are used in the harshest light truck tire
applications. ODI’s analysis of VOQ and
EWR data, and Firestone’s property
damage and warranty adjustment claim
data by individual tire line, size,
production year and manufacturing
plant, indicate that, as in prior technical
reviews, the failure rates for the subject
population of Steeltex tires are within
the range of rates observed in peer tires
of similar size, age and application.
Similarly, when the Steeltex tire data
are analyzed as a whole, the data again
show failure rates that are similar to,
and in some cases lower than, peer tires
of the same size and load rating.
In addition to examining property
damage and warranty adjustment claim
data, ODI also examined fatality and
injury claims to determine if a defect
trend in the subject tires could be
identified based on those data. Our
analysis of data involving tires within
the scope of petition DP06–001 revealed
a total of 19 fatalities in 12 crashes and
209 injuries in 121 crashes. ODI
analyzed the data to determine if
commonalities exist that would yield
evidence of a defect trend. The tires on
vehicles in these incidents were
distributed over multiple tire lines, tire
sizes, manufacturing plants and
production years. In the case of fatal
crashes, the Steeltex tires were
distributed over all three tire lines, three
different tire sizes, two assembly plants
and four of the six production years. In
the case of incidents resulting in
injuries, the Steeltex tires were
distributed over all three tire lines, four
tire sizes, all four manufacturing plants
and four of the six production years.
Although a few of the incidents
involved common tires, the failure rates
of these tires did not reveal a defect
trend.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:58 Feb 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
The tires studied by ODI with the
highest rate of involvement in crashes
involving death or injury were the
Steeltex Radial A/T LT265/75R16 Load
Range D tires recalled by Firestone in
04T–003. These tires comprised
approximately 2 percent of all Steeltex
tires produced by Firestone from 1999
through 2005, but were involved in 20
percent of fatal crashes and 21 percent
of all crashes resulting in death or
injury. ODI’s analysis of the Steeltex
tires within the scope of DP06–001
found that the overall rate of such
crashes per tires produced is 92 percent
lower than the tires recalled in 04T–003.
When analyzed by individual tire line
and plant, the tire with the next highest
rate of crashes resulting in death or
injury had a rate 82 percent lower than
the recalled tires.
Of the alleged 19 fatalities and 209
injuries, 14 of the alleged fatalities 14
and 186 of the alleged injuries occurred
before or during our previous defect
petitions. Although there have been a
few additional crash incidents that have
occurred since denial of the last two
petitions, DP04–004 and DP04–005,
these do not demonstrate a defect trend
and no other new evidence has been
provided to ODI to support the
petitioners’ allegations of safety defects
in the subject Steeltex tires.
Additionally, as was the case at the
denial of DP04–004 and DP04–005, we
do not have a basis for determining that
these incidents, or any significant
portion of them, are attributable to
identifiable defects in a specific line and
size of Steeltex tire.
ODI is aware of three fatal crashes (six
total fatalities) involving vehicles
equipped with Steeltex tires that the
agency had not previously considered
when denying the earlier petitions
(including the one crash that occurred
in 2003 but did not come to the agency’s
attention until after those denials in
2004). Each crash involved a different
line and size of Steeltex tire. ODI’s
analysis of available data sources 15 did
not identify a defect trend with respect
to either of the three different Steeltex
tire lines or sizes involved in these
crashes.
Additionally, ODI is also aware of
twenty-one alleged crashes (twentythree total injuries) occurring since the
denial of DP04–004 and DP04–005. The
tires involved in these incidents were of
varying Steeltex tire lines, sizes,
production years, and originated from
14 One of the 14 fatalities occurred in 2003;
however ODI was unaware of the incident when
DP04–004 and DP04–005 were denied on
September 28, 2004.
15 EWR, Firestone, VOQs, and Petitioners’ List.
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
three of the four manufacturing plants
noted in the petition. Again, ODI’s
analysis of the various Steeltex tire lines
and sizes involved in these incidents
did not identify a defect trend.
6.0 Conclusion
ODI has now conducted four
technical reviews of Firestone Steeltex
tires at the petitioners’ request. After
review of the data available to the
agency, and in consideration of factors
such as application, usage, the number
of failures, failure rates, peer
comparisons, severity of injury, and
examination of potential failure modes,
the agency has not found evidence of a
defect trend in a particular sub-category
of Steeltex tires that has not been
recalled or in the broad population of
over 23 million Steeltex tires within the
scope of the petition. Based on ODI’s
analysis of the information submitted in
support of the petition, information in
ODI’s internal databases, information
provided by Firestone, and information
gathered through prior technical
reviews of Steeltex tires, it is unlikely
that NHTSA would issue an order for
the notification and remedy of a safetyrelated defect in the subject tires at the
conclusion of the investigation
requested by the petitioners. Therefore,
in view of the need to allocate and
prioritize NHTSA’s limited resources to
best accomplish the agency’s safety
mission, petition DP06–001 is denied.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30120(e); delegations
of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: February 2, 2007.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E7–2103 Filed 2–7–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Pipeline Safety: Requests for Waivers
of Compliance (Special Permits)
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA); DOT.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The federal pipeline safety
laws allow a pipeline operator to
request PHMSA to waive compliance
with any part of the federal pipeline
safety regulations. We are publishing
this notice to provide a list of requests
we have received from pipeline
operators seeking relief from
compliance with certain pipeline safety
regulations. This notice seeks public
E:\FR\FM\08FEN1.SGM
08FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 26 (Thursday, February 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6038-6042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2103]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Denial of Motor Vehicle Recall Petition
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Denial of a petition for an investigation into alleged defects
in Firestone Steeltex tires.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice denies a petition submitted to NHTSA under 49
U.S.C. 30162 by the Law Offices of Lisoni & Lisoni of Pasadena,
California. The petition requests that the agency open a safety-related
defect investigation into alleged defects in Firestone Steeltex tires
manufactured from 1999 through 2005 in four Firestone plants located in
Joliette, Canada; Aiken, South Carolina; Decatur, Illinois; and
Cuernavaca, Mexico. After review of the information submitted by the
petitioners and other pertinent information, NHTSA has concluded that
further expenditure of the agency's investigative resources on the
issues raised by the petition does not appear warranted.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Derek Rinehardt, Safety Defects
Engineer, Office of Defects Investigation (ODI), NHTSA, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-3642.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Petition Review--DP06-001
1.0 Introduction
On May 1, 2006, the Law Offices of Lisoni & Lisoni (petitioners)
submitted a petition requesting that the Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) open an investigation of Firestone Steeltex tires
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30162, and issue a recall order pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118(b), 30119 and 30120. This petition was denominated as
DP06-001. Petitioners submitted some additional information on June 23,
2006.
Under 49 U.S.C. 30166, NHTSA has the authority to conduct an
investigation to consider whether a motor vehicle or equipment contains
a safety-related defect. 49 U.S.C. 30118(b) authorizes NHTSA to make a
determination that a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment contains
a defect related to motor vehicle safety. If NHTSA makes such a
determination, NHTSA issues an order directing the manufacturer of the
vehicle or equipment to give notification of the defect to the owners,
purchasers and dealers and to remedy the defect under 49 U.S.C. 30120.
Collectively, the manufacturer's notice and provision of a remedy under
section 30120 are known as a recall.
ODI has an ongoing review process in which it reviews consumer
complaints and data submitted by manufacturers in an effort to identify
defect trends. If this ongoing review of information were to reveal
possible defect trends in Steeltex or any other tires, ODI would open
an investigation, as it does on scores of vehicle and equipment issues
every year when the available evidence so warrants. In addition, any
interested person may, under section 30162, file a petition requesting
that NHTSA begin a proceeding to decide whether to issue an order under
section 30118.
As a practical matter, the granting of a petition under section
30162 begins an investigation. An investigation may or may not result
in a recall. In determining whether to grant or deny a petition under
30162, NHTSA conducts a technical review of the petition. 49 CFR 552.6.
The technical review may consist of an analysis of the material
submitted together with the information already in the possession of
the agency. It may also include the collection of additional
information. NHTSA has discretion in deciding which matters are worthy
of investigation and possible recall order. In addition to the
technical merits of the petition, NHTSA may consider additional
factors, such as the allocation of agency resources, agency priorities,
and the likelihood of success in litigation that might arise from the
order sought by the petitioner. 49 CFR 552.8. As noted above, if NHTSA
grants the petition, an investigation is commenced to determine the
existence of the defect. 49 CFR 552.9.
Motor vehicle tires are items of equipment subject to a recall
order under section 30118 if they contain a defect related to motor
vehicle safety. Were NHTSA to issue an order directing the recall of
tires under that section, the agency would have the burden of
demonstrating the existence of the defect and that the defect is
safety-related. One possible indicator of a defective tire is an
excessively high rate of failures compared to other, comparable tire
lines. However, not every tire failure is the result of a defect in the
tire. Tires may fail for a variety of reasons, such as improper
maintenance and impact damage from road hazards. Moreover, because not
all tires with the same broad label (e.g., ``Steeltex'') are
constructed in exactly the same way or designed for the same function,
NHTSA often focuses on whether any specific grouping of similarly
constructed tires (e.g., distinguished by tire line, tire size, and/
[[Page 6039]]
or date and location of manufacture) is defective. DP06-001 is a broad
and sweeping petition that covers a number of different tires. NHTSA
could not base a recall order merely on a generalized allegation that
an enormous population of tires is defective. Instead, NHTSA must
carefully review the details underlying such an allegation to determine
whether the facts provide a basis for agency action.
ODI began a technical review of DP06-001 on May 24, 2006. During
the review, ODI:
Analyzed data within its own Vehicle Owners Questionnaire
(VOQ) database;
Analyzed early warning reporting (EWR) data submitted by
all tire manufacturers since December 2003;
Requested and analyzed data pertaining to Steeltex tire
performance from Bridgestone-Firestone North American Tire, LLC
(Firestone);
Analyzed the petition contents and additional data
requested from the petitioners;
Reviewed prior petitions submitted by petitioners: DP02-
011, DP04-004 and DP04-005.
Based on this technical review, NHTSA has concluded that the
petition should be denied.
2.0 Background
DP06-001 is the fourth petition submitted by the petitioners asking
the agency to open a defect investigation into Steeltex tires. In
addition to the four petitions from the petitioners, the agency has
reviewed Steeltex tire data in two other instances, as discussed in
more detail below.
The scope of the current petition involves over 23 and a half
million Steeltex tires in three load ranges (C, D, and E), three tire
lines (all terrain (A/T) and all season (R4S and R4SII)), and in twelve
sizes \1\ manufactured since 1999 at four plants (Joliette, Canada;
Aiken, South Carolina; Decatur, Illinois and Cuernavaca, Mexico).
Steeltex is a model name applied to the majority of light truck radial
tires that Firestone sold beginning in about 1990. Steeltex tires have
been the primary original equipment (OE) tire on many of the largest
passenger vans, sport utility vehicles (SUVs), pickup trucks, and
``cutaways'' (including motor homes and ambulances) sold since 1990.
However, they are no longer in production.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The twelve tire sizes are: 7.00R15LT, 7.50R16LT,
8.00R16.5LT, 8.75R16.5LT, 9.50R16.5LT, LT215/75R15, LT215/85R16,
LT225/75R16, LT235/75R15, LT235/85R16, LT245/75R16, LT265/75R16.
\2\ Firestone phased out the production of the various Steeltex
tire lines between 2004 and 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Load Range E (LRE) tires represent the largest population of
Steeltex tires manufactured from 1999 through 2005--accounting for
approximately eighty-three percent of the Steeltex tires produced. LRE
tires may be inflated up to 80 psi and can carry between 2,500 lbs and
3,400 lbs per tire. LRE tires have the highest load rating among the
three load ranges of Steeltex tires. LRE tires are also used in more
diverse applications and operate under more severe duty conditions and
higher loads than the lesser load range tires (Load Range C and Load
Range D).
Steeltex tires are light truck radial (LTR) tires comprised of two
polyester body plies and two steel belts. LTR tires are distinguished
from passenger radial (PSR) tires by having heavier cord gauges,
thicker rubber plies, deeper tread depths, and substantially higher
inflation pressures. Within the population of Steeltex tires there
exists a variety of designs that include obvious differences such as
tread pattern, sidewall configuration, and tire size, as well as
differences in internal construction such as cord configuration, cord
gauge, cord angle, and mold shape.
ODI initiated its first investigation (PE00-040) of Steeltex tires
on September 9, 2000. PE00-040 was closed on April 9, 2002. This
investigation revealed that Steeltex tires displayed failure rates
comparable to and, in some instances, lower than those of LTR tires
sold by other major manufacturers. ODI also noted that the vehicle type
had the largest influence on the likelihood of a tire failure causing a
vehicle crash.
ODI revisited the issue of Steeltex tire failures during its review
of the petitioners' November 2002 petition (DP02-011). Petitioners
alleged that all Steeltex tires manufactured since 1990 were defective,
that ODI had undercounted VOQs in its database, and that Firestone had
deliberately understated its failure figures. ODI denied DP02-011after
finding that VOQ and Firestone data had changed little since the
closing of PE00-040 and that no specific defect trend was identified.
See 68 FR 35941 (June 17, 2003).
Based in part on EWR data, Firestone announced on February 26,
2004, that it would recall \3\ approximately 487,000 LT265/75R16 Load
Range D Steeltex A/T tires manufactured primarily for OE fitment on MY
2000-2003 Ford Excursion SUVs. At that time, EWR and other data did not
indicate a defect trend in Steeltex tires outside of this recalled
population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NHTSA Recall 04T-003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ODI again revisited the subject of Steeltex tire failures in May of
2004 after petitioners filed two more defect petitions (DP04-004 and
DP04-005). The petitions alleged that all Steeltex tires manufactured
since 1995 were defective (DP04-004) and that Steeltex tires installed
as OE on ambulances pose an unacceptable safety risk to Emergency
Medical Service (EMS) operators (DP04-005). NHTSA issued a notice
denying both petitions on September 29, 2004. See 69 FR 58221. NHTSA
concluded that no defect trend existed as the Steeltex tires' failure
rates did not stand out from those of their peers.
3.0 Petition Allegations--DP06-001
Overall, petitioners' allegations in DP06-001 are not new--they
primarily restate assertions from DP04-004 and DP04-005. As in those
prior petitions, the petitioners do not point to a particular defect or
failure mode. Rather, they contend that various failures lead to the
conclusion that the entire population of subject tires is generally
defective. Further, petitioners devote nearly the entire May 2006
petition attempting to rebut particular points made in NHTSA's
September 29, 2004 notice denying their prior petitions (DP04-004 and
DP04-005). One noticeable difference between their prior petitions and
DP06-001 is that petitioners have narrowed the scope of DP06-001.
Petitioners now ask the agency to open a defect investigation into
Steeltex R4S, R4S II and A/T tires manufactured from 1999 to 2005 in
Firestone's Decatur, Aiken, Joliette and Mexico manufacturing plants,
excluding tires previously recalled under recall 04T-003. Even with
this limitation, there are more than 23 million tires within the scope
of the petition.
The petitioners provide limited information in support of DP06-
001.\4\ The petition includes a list of 57 fatalities and 161 injuries
allegedly resulting from ``serious'' design and manufacturing defects
in the subject tires. The total includes a composite number of
fatalities and injuries from a list of incidents compiled by the
petitioners (non-VOQ incidents) and those that petitioners identified
from VOQs submitted to NHTSA. As explained below, ODI's review of these
allegations revealed numerous
[[Page 6040]]
inconsistencies and indicated that the vast majority of the alleged
deaths and injuries were not within the scope of this petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Petitioners provided two submissions to the agency. First,
on May 1, 2006, they submitted materials with their petition.
Second, on June 23, 2006, they submitted a response to ODI's request
for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 25, 2006, ODI requested more information detailing the
specific failure modes and specific descriptions of all defect
conditions alleged by the petitioners. The petitioners' June 23, 2006
response noted that an earlier list of supposedly relevant incidents
submitted in March 2003 should be disregarded. However, the June 23,
2006 letter largely restated the information provided in the March 2003
letter, which was a supplement to their initial petition, DP02-011. A
limited number of new alleged incidents were reported by the
petitioners in their June 23, 2006 letter, but several did not fall
within the scope of the current petition.\5\ Petitioners said in that
letter that they would provide additional documentation of several of
the deaths and injuries but, as of this writing, have not done so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For example, the petitioners list an incident from June 30,
2002, involving 5 individuals (three fatalities and two injuries).
The incident was determined to involve Michelin tires, not Firestone
tires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As in prior petitions, the petitioners refer to Firestone's mid-
1990s C95 cost reduction program \6\ to support their contention that
tire quality degraded, causing numerous defects with Steeltex tires.
Petitioners did not provide any new evidence supporting their
contention that implementation of the C95 program degraded
manufacturing quality at the four Firestone plants identified in their
petition. Firestone contends that many of the recommendations in the
C95 program were never implemented and that the changes that were
implemented did not have any adverse effect on tire performance. ODI
did not find any evidence that would link the C95 cost reduction
program to any defect in Steeltex tires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The C95 program was a Firestone program designed to improve
manufacturing efficiencies and productivity at its manufacturing
plants, as noted in detail in prior petitions (DP04-004 and DP04-
005). Information concerning C95 was submitted by the petitioners to
ODI in April 2003 during ODI's technical review of DP02-011. The
documents submitted included a list of 153 potential cost-reduction
recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.0 DP06-001 Analysis
4.1 Information Submitted by Petitioners
Petitioners' central allegation in DP06-001 is that Steeltex tires
have caused 57 deaths and 161 injuries since 1999. ODI has carefully
reviewed the list to verify the petitioners' allegations and to
determine which of the alleged deaths and injuries are actually
relevant to the tires that are the subject of the petition and, of
those, which had not previously been considered by NHTSA in connection
with the petitioners' previous petitions. Only by sorting out which
allegations are within the scope of the present petition can we
determine whether that petition provides a basis for the requested
action.
The petitioners' list of deaths and injuries includes multiple
duplicate incidents \7\, incidents that did not involve a tire failure
\8\, incidents involving tires not manufactured by Firestone \9\,
incidents involving tires manufactured prior to 1999 \10\, incidents
involving tires that have been previously recalled under recall number
04T-003 \11\, and incidents allegedly involving injuries that were
determined to in fact not involve any injuries.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For example, the petitioners counted separately three VOQs
(10095168, 10090258 and 10098938) that were related to the same
incident alleging an injury. In addition, the subject tire was
manufactured in 1997, which is outside the scope of the petition.
Also, the petitioners list VOQ 555477 as a unique incident but that
was a duplicate of VOQ 10002751.
\8\ For example, five firefighters were counted in the fifty-
seven fatalities alleged by the petitioners to be a result of a
Steeltex tire failure. However, published reports indicate that the
incident was caused by driver error (the driver was found guilty of
careless driving), not a tire failure. Also, petitioners count an
injury reported through VOQ 8000804, which cites engine stall, not a
tire failure.
\9\ For example: (a) the petitioners included four injuries
associated with VOQ 560738, although the subject tire of the
incident was determined to be a Goodyear Wrangler Radial LT245/
75R16, and (b) one incident from the petitioners' list involving
three fatalities and two injuries was determined to involve a
Michelin tire.
\10\ For example, petitioners included: (a) four alleged
injuries associated with VOQ 865772, which references a tire
manufactured in 1997; and (b) one injury alleged in VOQ 868962 that
references an incident with a date (February 12, 1994) that is not
within the scope of the petition.
\11\ For example: (a) an incident from the petitioners' list
involving a 2000 Ford Excursion alleging five serious injuries was
determined to involve a tire that fell within the scope of recall
04T-003; and (b) the petitioners counted four injuries associated
with VOQ 10060714, although the tires fell within the scope of the
recall 04T-003.
\12\ For example: (a) the petitioners counted five injuries
associated with VOQ 748712, although the VOQ's narrative states
``luckily, no one was injured''; and (b) the petitioners counted one
injury associated with VOQ 10146790, although the VOQ notes ``0
injuries and 0 fatalities''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, petitioners overstate the number of relevant
complaints and related deaths and injuries in ODI's VOQ database. They
cite to one VOQ (10007251) that allegedly documents 18 fatalities and
27 injuries associated with Steeltex tire failures. In a press release
submitted to the agency on May 2, 2006, the petitioners state that this
VOQ is ``perhaps the most shocking'' of the complaints to NHTSA and
that it ``documents a tire tread belt failure resulting in eighteen
deaths and twenty-seven injuries''. Actually this VOQ does not document
an incident where a single tread belt failure resulted in eighteen
deaths and twenty-seven injuries. The VOQ was previously submitted by
petitioners in March 2003 and consists of a compilation of deaths and
injuries alleged by the petitioners to have occurred in several
different incidents. ODI's analysis of the incidents listed in this VOQ
found that many of the incidents could not be validated, including some
incidents that involved vehicles that would not normally be fitted with
light truck radial tires as well as some that involved Steeltex tires
outside the scope of the petition (i.e., prior to 1999). ODI confirmed
that only three incidents (three injuries) alleged by VOQ 10007251 were
within the scope of DP06-001. When ODI requested additional information
about the March 2003 submission, the petitioners indicated that it
should be ignored because it was superseded by DP06-001.
When all of the unrelated incidents and incidents associated with
tires that are not within the scope of the petition are removed from
the list submitted by petitioners, what remains are allegations of 6
fatalities and 43 injuries occurring over a period of six years. When,
based on ODI's own research, data from Firestone and ODI were added,
the totals were 19 fatalities and 209 injuries involving the
approximately 23 million tires within the scope of DP06-001. As
discussed above, these data include all tire-related crashes resulting
in death or injury irrespective of whether a defect was identified in
the tire.
Contrary to the petition's assertion of an increasing trend in such
severe crashes, the data show that the trend of crashes involving
deaths and injuries involving Steeltex tires is actually declining,
with 82 percent fewer in 2005 than in 2003. Just 5 of the fatalities
and 23 of the injuries occurred in the two years since ODI denied DP04-
004 and DP04-005 from the petitioners in 2004.
4.2 VOQs Since the Denial of DP04-004 and DP04-005
In order to appropriately analyze DP06-001, ODI conducted a broad
search of its VOQ database for any Steeltex tire-related complaints
received since the September 29, 2004 denial of DP04-004 and DP04-005.
Since the denial of those petitions, ODI has received 131 VOQs alleging
a failure of a Steeltex tire. Forty-two VOQs were associated with tires
that did not fall within the scope of DP06-001. Fifty-two
[[Page 6041]]
VOQs alleged Steeltex tire failures, but did not provide sufficient
information in the VOQ to determine whether the tire fell within the
scope of this petition.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ For some of the VOQs submitted by petitioners, ODI was
unable determine if the tire reported fell within the scope of DP06-
001. ODI made attempts to contact the consumers to obtain accurate
DOT numbers of the reported tires. ODI could not determine if the
reported tires fell within the scope of DP06-001 due to one or more
of the following reasons: invalid or unknown tire information (DOT
numbers) or incorrect or inadequate consumer contact information to
obtain the correct DOT number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thirty-seven VOQs received since the closure of DP04-004 and DP04-
005 appeared to be within the scope of the present petition. However,
of the 37 VOQs, 14 involved tires that were within the population of
Steeltex tires recalled in 04T-003. Those previously recalled tires are
not within the scope of this petition. Eliminating the 14 complaints
for tires that have been recalled leaves 23 complaints that ODI has
verified as within the scope this petition. Of the remaining 23
complaints, two involved alleged crashes that resulted in two minor
injuries. While ODI is always concerned when a crash is alleged to have
occurred, examination of the complaint data, particularly in light of
the large population of Steeltex tires, again demonstrates that the
complaint rates for Steeltex tires are comparable to other tires. These
rates do not indicate that a defect trend exists.
4.3 EWR Data
ODI began receiving EWR data from all major tire manufacturers in
December of 2003. This includes data on production, death and injury
claims and notices, property damage claims, and warranty adjustments.
ODI used two approaches to analyze EWR data. First, it analyzed the
data in a manner similar to how the petitioners suggest a review of
Steeltex tires should be conducted: By performing an analysis of
Steeltex tire data in their entirety and comparing them to data on
other major tire brands manufactured by other major light truck tire
manufacturers. Second, ODI performed an analysis of Steeltex tires by
specific tire line, tire size, and production years. Neither analysis
identified a trend indicating a safety related issue. In fact, both
analyses show downward trends since the third quarter of 2003, as
previously noted.
ODI analyzed data on claims and notices involving a death or
injury. Based on EWR data through the second quarter of 2006, the
fatality and injury rates are showing a downward trend. Our analysis
revealed that Steeltex tires within the scope of DP06-001 were below
the industry average for the rate of claims and notices of death for
light truck tires. Other major light truck tire manufacturers had
higher fatality rates. With respect to rates for claims and notices
involving an injury, Steeltex tire rates were slightly above the
industry average; however, they did not stand out when compared to peer
manufacturers (i.e. those with the largest volumes). Other major light
truck tire manufacturers had higher rates for injuries. In addition,
the trends of crashes involving Steeltex tires and resulting in death
or injury have declined significantly in recent years, dropping by 82
percent from 2003 to 2005.
Analysis of severe crash (injurious and fatal) rates by tire line,
tire size, and production years found that no Steeltex tire that ranked
among the top 30 highest rates for light truck radial tires for the
production years within the scope of the petition. In contrast to the
tires recalled under 04T-003, the tires analyzed in DP06-001 with the
highest fatality and injury rates where six times lower and four times
lower, respectively, than the tires that were subject of the recall.
ODI's analysis of EWR data through the second quarter of 2006
revealed that the property damage claim rate for Steeltex tires as a
whole is very close to and in many cases below the light truck radial
(LTR) tire class average. An analysis of property damage and warranty
adjustment rates by tire line, tire size and production year found no
single Steeltex tire ranked among the top 20 highest rates for light
truck radial tires for production years within the scope of the
petition. Several other major light truck tire manufacturers have
higher rates of property damage claims than Steeltex tires. Also,
overall, property damage claims have shown a downward trend since
calendar year 2003 for Steeltex tires. The data do not support a defect
trend.
4.4 Firestone Data
ODI reviewed data on thousands of property damage and warranty
adjustment claims, as well as lawsuits, injury and fatality claims and
notices related to Steeltex tires produced between 1999 and 2005
submitted by Firestone. As with the prior petitions, LRE tires account
for the vast majority of the Firestone claims. This reflects the large
population of LRE tires in use, which exceeds the populations of the
other load ranges identified by petitioners. In addition to such a
large population, higher claims result from the severe duty conditions
under which LRE tires typically operate. When compared to similar tires
manufactured by other light truck tire manufacturers, Steeltex tires do
not stand out. In fact, ODI's analysis of data submitted by Firestone
and peer data from EWR indicate that the Steeltex tires perform at
rates similar to those of the rest of the industry and compare
favorably to at least two other major light truck tire manufacturers.
5.0 Discussion
This is the fourth petition filed by the petitioners requesting
that NHTSA re-open its investigation into Steeltex tires. In response
to the petitioners' last two petitions, the agency conducted a thorough
assessment that included, among other things, the physical examination
of Steeltex tires and the hiring of an independent expert to examine
Steeltex tires. See 69 FR 58221, 58222. During the course of that
technical review, the agency expended considerable resources to decide
whether to open a new investigation on Steeltex tires. After the
review, the agency did not identify a potential safety-related defect
trend and, therefore, denied the petitions.
In the present petition, DP06-001, petitioners provided NHTSA with
very little new data. Instead, they relied generally upon their past
assertions that the totality of the complaints supports the finding of
a defect trend. Petitioners' list of documented incidents of fatalities
and injuries was marked by inconsistencies between what petitioners
alleged and the actual facts of the incidents. Once the incidents that
were not actually within the scope of the petition were removed, only
three fatal crashes and 21 injurious crashes remained that were unknown
to NHTSA at the time the agency issued its decisions on the previous
petitions in September 2004. Other than this small number of incidents
alleging a defect in Steeltex tires, the petitioners did not offer any
further support that was not previously addressed by NHTSA in prior
defect petitions. This small number of incidents, in such a large
population of over 23 and a half million tires, does not evidence a
defect trend.
Additionally, petitioners did not provide evidence of or identify a
particular failure mode that would be indicative of performance issues
that ODI could analyze and potentially confirm through its analysis of
the available data. Contrary to the petitioners' broad assertion of a
defect trend based upon various failure modes, the analysis of the
available data does not identify a discrete failure mode that
[[Page 6042]]
amounts to a potential safety-related trend.
The agency once again has spent considerable resources considering
whether to re-open a defects investigation into Steeltex tires. ODI
analyzed the available data for evidence of a possible source and mode
of failure of the subject tires, including data submitted by the
petitioners, VOQ and EWR data, Firestone's claim and adjustment data
for the subject tires, owner complaints to ODI since the close of the
prior petitions, and data available from the agency's prior technical
reviews of Steeltex tire petitions.
The Steeltex tires within the scope of DP06-001 represent an
immense and diverse population of tires totaling over 23 million tires
distributed over 63 different tire line, size and manufacturing plant
combinations that are used in the harshest light truck tire
applications. ODI's analysis of VOQ and EWR data, and Firestone's
property damage and warranty adjustment claim data by individual tire
line, size, production year and manufacturing plant, indicate that, as
in prior technical reviews, the failure rates for the subject
population of Steeltex tires are within the range of rates observed in
peer tires of similar size, age and application. Similarly, when the
Steeltex tire data are analyzed as a whole, the data again show failure
rates that are similar to, and in some cases lower than, peer tires of
the same size and load rating.
In addition to examining property damage and warranty adjustment
claim data, ODI also examined fatality and injury claims to determine
if a defect trend in the subject tires could be identified based on
those data. Our analysis of data involving tires within the scope of
petition DP06-001 revealed a total of 19 fatalities in 12 crashes and
209 injuries in 121 crashes. ODI analyzed the data to determine if
commonalities exist that would yield evidence of a defect trend. The
tires on vehicles in these incidents were distributed over multiple
tire lines, tire sizes, manufacturing plants and production years. In
the case of fatal crashes, the Steeltex tires were distributed over all
three tire lines, three different tire sizes, two assembly plants and
four of the six production years. In the case of incidents resulting in
injuries, the Steeltex tires were distributed over all three tire
lines, four tire sizes, all four manufacturing plants and four of the
six production years. Although a few of the incidents involved common
tires, the failure rates of these tires did not reveal a defect trend.
The tires studied by ODI with the highest rate of involvement in
crashes involving death or injury were the Steeltex Radial A/T LT265/
75R16 Load Range D tires recalled by Firestone in 04T-003. These tires
comprised approximately 2 percent of all Steeltex tires produced by
Firestone from 1999 through 2005, but were involved in 20 percent of
fatal crashes and 21 percent of all crashes resulting in death or
injury. ODI's analysis of the Steeltex tires within the scope of DP06-
001 found that the overall rate of such crashes per tires produced is
92 percent lower than the tires recalled in 04T-003. When analyzed by
individual tire line and plant, the tire with the next highest rate of
crashes resulting in death or injury had a rate 82 percent lower than
the recalled tires.
Of the alleged 19 fatalities and 209 injuries, 14 of the alleged
fatalities \14\ and 186 of the alleged injuries occurred before or
during our previous defect petitions. Although there have been a few
additional crash incidents that have occurred since denial of the last
two petitions, DP04-004 and DP04-005, these do not demonstrate a defect
trend and no other new evidence has been provided to ODI to support the
petitioners' allegations of safety defects in the subject Steeltex
tires. Additionally, as was the case at the denial of DP04-004 and
DP04-005, we do not have a basis for determining that these incidents,
or any significant portion of them, are attributable to identifiable
defects in a specific line and size of Steeltex tire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ One of the 14 fatalities occurred in 2003; however ODI was
unaware of the incident when DP04-004 and DP04-005 were denied on
September 28, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ODI is aware of three fatal crashes (six total fatalities)
involving vehicles equipped with Steeltex tires that the agency had not
previously considered when denying the earlier petitions (including the
one crash that occurred in 2003 but did not come to the agency's
attention until after those denials in 2004). Each crash involved a
different line and size of Steeltex tire. ODI's analysis of available
data sources \15\ did not identify a defect trend with respect to
either of the three different Steeltex tire lines or sizes involved in
these crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ EWR, Firestone, VOQs, and Petitioners' List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, ODI is also aware of twenty-one alleged crashes
(twenty-three total injuries) occurring since the denial of DP04-004
and DP04-005. The tires involved in these incidents were of varying
Steeltex tire lines, sizes, production years, and originated from three
of the four manufacturing plants noted in the petition. Again, ODI's
analysis of the various Steeltex tire lines and sizes involved in these
incidents did not identify a defect trend.
6.0 Conclusion
ODI has now conducted four technical reviews of Firestone Steeltex
tires at the petitioners' request. After review of the data available
to the agency, and in consideration of factors such as application,
usage, the number of failures, failure rates, peer comparisons,
severity of injury, and examination of potential failure modes, the
agency has not found evidence of a defect trend in a particular sub-
category of Steeltex tires that has not been recalled or in the broad
population of over 23 million Steeltex tires within the scope of the
petition. Based on ODI's analysis of the information submitted in
support of the petition, information in ODI's internal databases,
information provided by Firestone, and information gathered through
prior technical reviews of Steeltex tires, it is unlikely that NHTSA
would issue an order for the notification and remedy of a safety-
related defect in the subject tires at the conclusion of the
investigation requested by the petitioners. Therefore, in view of the
need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA's limited resources to best
accomplish the agency's safety mission, petition DP06-001 is denied.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30120(e); delegations of authority at CFR
1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: February 2, 2007.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E7-2103 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
