Yokohama Tire Company, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 11190-11191 [2012-4296]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
11190
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices
found and recorded. 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
Firestone 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)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:34 Feb 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
Issued on: February 16, 2012.
Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2012–4297 Filed 2–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
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
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
ACTION: Notice of Petition Denial.
AGENCY:
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).
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:
https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2010–
0115.’’
SUMMARY:
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
1 Yokohama
Tire Company (YTC) is a
replacement equipment manufacturer incorporated
in the State of California.
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\24FEN1.SGM
24FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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
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
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:34 Feb 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11191
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
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA 2012–0015]
Insurance Cost Information Regulation
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of Availability.
AGENCY:
This notice announces
NHTSA’s publication of the 2012 text
and data for the annual insurance cost
information booklet that all car dealers
must make available to prospective
purchasers, pursuant to 49 CFR 582.4.
This information is intended to assist
prospective purchasers in comparing
differences in passenger vehicle
collision loss experience that could
affect auto insurance costs.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons may
obtain a copy of this booklet or read
background documents by visiting
https://regulations.dot.gov at any time, or
visiting Room W12–140 on the ground
level of the West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE. Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
SUMMARY:
Ms.
Carlita Ballard, Office of International
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer
Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE. Washington, DC 20590. Ms.
Ballard’s telephone number is (202)
366–5222. Her fax number is (202) 493–
2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Pursuant to section 201(e) of the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost
Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. 1941(e), on
March 5, 1993, 58 FR 12545, NHTSA
amended 49 CFR part 582, Insurance
Cost Information Regulation, to require
all dealers of automobiles to distribute
to prospective customers information
that compares differences in insurance
costs of different makes and models of
passenger cars based on differences in
damage susceptibility.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\24FEN1.SGM
24FEN1
]]>Agencies
[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: https://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
