Yokohama Tire Corporation, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64403-64405 [2019-25223]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2019 / Notices
14th hour from the beginning of the
work shift. Drivers remain limited by
the weekly limits and the employer
must maintain accurate time records
concerning the time the driver reports
for work each day, the total number of
hours the driver is on duty each day,
and the time the driver is released from
duty each day. As KRD explained,
drivers usually return to the work
reporting location within 12 hours but
the demands during certain periods
necessitate work shifts going beyond 12
hours. Therefore, the exemption
application should not be construed as
a mechanism for the applicant to
implement a new business model with
all its drivers routinely extending their
maximum work shifts from 12 to 14
hours. The exemption provides limited
relief to the recordkeeping requirements
for HOS for short-haul drivers who find
it necessary to exceed the 12-hour limit,
which impacts the type of HOS records
required.
VII. Terms and Conditions for the
Exemption
• KRD drivers must have a copy of
this notice in their possession while
operating under the terms of the
exemption. This notice serves as the
exemption document and must be
presented to law enforcement officials
upon request.
• KRD drivers must return to the
work reporting location and be released
from work within 14 consecutive hours.
(d) City or town, and State, in which
the accident occurred, or closest to the
accident scene;
(e) Driver’s name and license number;
(f) Vehicle number and State license
number;
(g) Number of individuals suffering
physical injury;
(h) Number of fatalities;
(i) The police-reported cause of the
accident;
(j) Whether the driver was cited for
violation of any traffic laws, motor
carrier safety regulations; and
(k) The driver’s total driving time and
total on-duty time period prior to the
accident.
Reports filed under this provision
shall be emailed to MCPSD@DOT.GOV.
VIII. Termination
FMCSA does not believe the drivers
covered by this exemption will
experience any deterioration of their
safety record. Interested parties or
organizations possessing information
that would otherwise show that this
motor carrier is not achieving the
requisite statutory level of safety should
immediately notify FMCSA. FMCSA
will take all steps necessary to protect
the public interest, including revocation
of the exemption. The FMCSA will
revoke the exemption immediately for
failure to comply with its terms and
conditions.
Issued on: November 14, 2019.
Jim Mullen,
Deputy Administrator.
Extent of the Exemption
[FR Doc. 2019–25339 Filed 11–20–19; 8:45 am]
This exemption is limited to the
provisions of 49 CFR 395.1(e)(1)(ii)(A).
KRD drivers must comply will all other
applicable provisions of the FMCSRs.
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
Preemption
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
31315(d), during the period this
exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that
conflicts with or is inconsistent with
this exemption with respect to a firm or
person operating under the exemption.
Notification to FMCSA
Any motor carrier utilizing this
exemption must notify FMCSA within 5
business days of any accident (as
defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving any
of the motor carrier’s CMVs operating
under the terms of this exemption. The
notification must include the following
information:
(a) Identity of the exemption: ‘‘Kimble
Recycling & Disposal, Inc;’’
(b) Name of operating motor carrier;
(c) Date of the accident;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Nov 20, 2019
Jkt 250001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. NHTSA–2018–0082; Notice 2]
Yokohama Tire Corporation, Grant of
Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
AGENCY:
Yokohama Tire Corporation
(YTC) has determined that certain
Yokohama RY023 brand replacement
commercial tires do not fully comply
with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New
Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles with
a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms
(10,000 lbs) and Motorcycles. YTC filed
a noncompliance report dated July 12,
2018. YTC subsequently petitioned
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64403
NHTSA on July 31, 2018, and submitted
a supplemental petition on February 6,
2019, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. This
document announces the grant of YTC’s
petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Abraham Diaz, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
telephone (202) 366–5310, facsimile
(202) 366–3081.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: YTC has determined that
certain Yokohama brand RY023
replacement commercial tires do not
fully comply with paragraph S6.5(d)
and (j) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New
Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles with
a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms
(10,000 lbs) and Motorcycles (49 CFR
571.119). YTC filed a noncompliance
report dated July 12, 2018, pursuant to
49 CFR part 573, Defects and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports. YTC subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on July 31, 2018, and submitted
a supplemental petition on February 6,
2019, for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of
49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that
this noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556,
Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
Notice of receipt of YTC’s petition
was published with a 30-day public
comment period, on June 21, 2019, in
the Federal Register (84 FR 29280). No
comments were received. To view the
petition and all supporting documents
log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) website at
https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2018–
0082.’’
II. Tires Involved: Approximately
4,704 Yokohama RY023 size 11R22.5
16(LR H) 146/143L commercial tires,
manufactured between February 2,
2018, and May 17, 2018, are potentially
involved.
III. Noncompliance: YTC explains that
the noncompliance was due to a mold
error in which one sidewall, the serial
sidewall, of subject tires incorrectly
state the ply rating, load range and load
capacity as required by paragraph S6.5
(d) and (j) of FMVSS No. 119.
Specifically, the tires were marked:
14 PR LOAD RANGE G
MAX. LOAD SINGLE 2800 kg (6175 lbs)
at 720 kPa (105psi) COLD
E:\FR\FM\21NON1.SGM
21NON1
64404
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2019 / Notices
MAX. LOAD DUAL 2650 kg (5840 lbs)
at 720 kPa (105 psi) COLD
When they should have been marked:
16 PR LOAD RANGE H
MAX. LOAD SINGLE 3000 kg (6610 lbs)
at 830 kPa (120 psi) COLD
MAX. LOAD DUAL 2725 kg (6005 lbs)
at 830 kPa (120 psi) COLD
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph
S6.5(d) and (j) of FMVSS No. 119,
includes the requirements relevant to
this petition:
• Except as specified in paragraph
S6.5, each tire shall be marked on each
sidewall with the information specified
in paragraphs (a) through (j) of
paragraph S6.5.
• The maximum load rating and
corresponding inflation pressure of the
tire, shown as follows:
(Mark on tires rated for single and
dual load): Max load single __kg (__lb)
at __kPa (__psi) cold. Max load
dual __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold.
(Mark on tires rated for only for single
load): Max load single __kg (__lb)
at __kPa (__psi) cold.
• Markings must contain the letter
designating the tire load range.
V. Summary of Petition: YTC
described the subject noncompliance
and stated its belief that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, YTC
submitted the following arguments:
1. This Petition concerns Yokohama
11R22.5 16PR RY023 commercial truck
and bus replacement tires whose
branding information incorrectly states
the ply rating, load range and load
capacity on one side (serial side) only,
while the branding information on the
other side (opposite serial side) is
correct for the subject tires. Because of
this mold branding error, these tires are
not in compliance with the tire labeling
requirement found in 49 CFR 571.119
S6.5(d) and (j), even though all of these
tires were manufactured with the
correct ply rating and load range.
2. YTC implemented verification
countermeasures to prevent any
recurrence of any incorrect tire
markings. Further investigation
determined that the suspect period
ended when the incorrect mold had
been removed from production on May
17, 2018, in the 19th production week
of 2018. The 764 tires in containment
will be repaired before they are sold.
3. Significantly, these tires were
manufactured as designed and meet or
exceed all applicable Federal motor
vehicle safety performance standards.
While the sidewall markings are correct
on the opposite serial side, the sidewall
markings on the serial side understate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Nov 20, 2019
Jkt 250001
the construction and capacity of the
subject tires. The misbranding of these
tires is not a safety concern and also has
no impact on the retreading, repairing
and recycling industries. The affected
tire mold has already been corrected
and all future production will have the
correct material shown on the sidewall.
4. NHTSA has studied the impact of
tire labeling information on safety in the
context of its rulemaking efforts under
the Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability and Documentation
(TREAD) Act. YTC stated that NHTSA’s
analysis concluded that tire
construction information on a tire’s
sidewall is not relied upon by dealers
and consumers in the selling or
purchasing of tires and has an
inconsequential impact on motor
vehicle safety. In addition, YTC cited
the following petitions that the agency
has previously granted for similar
noncompliances: See Sumitomo Rubber
Industries, Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 83
FR 13002 (March 26, 2018) and
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Grant of
Petition for Decision for Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 82 FR 18210 (April 17,
2017).
The Agency has studied the
implications of tire labeling information
on motor vehicle safety during the
rulemaking process for the TREAD Act
and the merits for a decision regarding
the subject inconsequential
noncompliance petition aligns with
previous inconsequential petitions with
similar noncompliances the agency has
granted and as cited by YTC.
YTC concluded by expressing the
belief that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety, and that its petition to be
exempted from providing notification of
the noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
YTC’s complete petition and all
supporting documents are available by
logging onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) website at:
https://www.regulations.gov and by
following the online search instructions
to locate the docket number as listed in
the title of this notice.
VI. NHTSA’s Analysis: The purpose of
the label stating the tire’s load carrying
capabilities as described in section
S6.5(d), and the load range marking
letter required by paragraph S6.5(j), is to
inform tire purchasers and end-users
about the load capacity of the tire. In the
case of the subject tires, YTC explained
that the information the load range letter
is meant to convey understates the
construction and capacity of the subject
PO 00000
Frm 00144
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
tire RY023 model and size 11R22.5.
Specifically, the tires were marked with
the load range ‘‘G’’ when in fact the
correct load range is ‘‘H.’’ Because the
tires were designed for the higher load
capacity, ‘‘H’’ at 3000 kg for single load
and 2725 kg for dual load, if a consumer
followed the load range ‘‘G’’ as marked,
indicating the tire was capable of
withstanding a 2800 kg for single load
and 2650 kg for dual load, they would
be using the tire in a load-carrying
capacity lower than the actual loadcarrying capacity of the subject tires. On
February 25, 2013, a similar petition for
inconsequential noncompliance on was
granted to Guizhou tyres with respect of
a mismarking of a tire load range, in
which was incorrectly marked as ‘‘F’’
when they should be tire load range ‘‘G’’
(see 78 FR 12828).
Because these subject tires have a
greater load carrying capability than the
marking load range ‘‘G’’ indicates, there
is no risk of these tires being overloaded
and thus, no risk to safety based on the
incorrect label.
VII. NHTSA’s Decision: In
consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA
finds that YTC has met its burden of
persuasion that the subject FMVSS No.
119 noncompliance in the affected tires
is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, YTC’s petition is
hereby granted and YTC is consequently
exempted from the obligation of
providing notification of, and a free
remedy for, that noncompliance under
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
NHTSA notes that the statutory
provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to
file petitions for a determination of
inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to
exempt manufacturers only from the
duties found in sections 30118 and
30120, respectively, to notify owners,
purchasers, and dealers of a defect or
noncompliance and to remedy the
defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any
decision on this petition only applies to
the subject tires that YTC no longer
controlled at the time it determined that
the noncompliance existed. However,
any decision on this petition does not
relieve tire distributors and dealers of
the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for
introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant tires under their
control after YTC notified them that the
subject noncompliance existed.
E:\FR\FM\21NON1.SGM
21NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2019 / Notices
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8.
Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019–25223 Filed 11–20–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2019–0102]
RIN 2127–ZRIN
Advanced Driver Assistance Systems
Draft Research Test Procedures
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Request for comments (RFC).
AGENCY:
NHTSA seeks public
comment on a series of nine draft
research test procedures developed by
the agency to assess the performance of
certain types of Advanced Driver
Assistance Systems (ADAS) available to
consumers. NHTSA is specifically
requesting comment on whether these
draft research test procedures
adequately, objectively, and practically
assess the system performance of the
underlying ADAS in a test track
environment. NHTSA intends to use
these draft research test procedures to
further its research goals by using the
output from clearly defined test
methods to help better understand
system operation, performance, and
potential limitations.
DATES: Comments must be received no
later than January 21, 2020.
ADDRESSES:
Documents: The draft research test
procedures described in this RFC are
available for viewing in PDF format in
Docket No. NHTSA–2019–0102.
Comments: You may submit
comments, identified by Docket No.
NHTSA–2019–0102, by any of the
following methods:
• Internet: To submit comments
electronically, go to the U.S.
Government regulations website at
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Fax: Written comments may be
faxed to 202–493–2251.
• Mail: Send comments to Docket
Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC
20590–0001.
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:41 Nov 20, 2019
Jkt 250001
• Hand Delivery: If you submit
written comments by hand or courier,
please do so at 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, Washington, DC between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• You may call Docket Management
at 1–800–647–5527.
Instructions: For detailed instructions
on submitting comments and additional
information, see the Public Participation
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
Privacy Act: In accordance with 5
U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its
rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice, DOT/ALL–
14 FDMS, accessible through https://
www.transportation.gov/privacy. To
facilitate tracking and response, we
encourage commenters to provide their
name, or the name of their organization;
however, submission of names is
completely optional. All timely
comments will be fully considered,
regardless of whether commenters
directly identify themselves. If you wish
to provide comments containing
proprietary or confidential information,
please contact the agency for alternate
submission instructions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
research issues: Mr. Garrick
Forkenbrock, Research Engineer,
Vehicle Research and Test Center,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 10820 SR 347, Bldg. 60,
East Liberty, OH 43319. Telephone:
937–666–4511. Email:
garrick.forkenbrock@dot.gov. For legal
issues: Ms. Sara Bennett, AttorneyAdvisor, Office of Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: 202–366–2992. Email:
sara.bennett@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA
seeks comment on the draft research test
procedures listed below, which assess
nine different ADAS technologies. As
background, the agency develops
different test procedures for different
purposes. Most commonly, those test
procedures are for rulemaking, New Car
Assessment Program (NCAP), or
research purposes. This RFC includes
test procedures that have been
developed for research purposes only.
Research test procedures are used by the
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64405
agency to evaluate a technology of
interest and, when presented publicly,
provide a basis from which gaps in test
methodology or other specific
deficiencies may be identified and
resolved. In contrast, rulemaking test
procedures are developed to support
identified rulemaking efforts and, if a
regulation is adopted, focus on ensuring
that a technology meets the level of
performance defined in the regulation
and are used by the agency to determine
compliance. Thus, the fact that NHTSA
is researching a specific technology is
not an indication that it will now or at
any time initiate a rulemaking related to
that technology or include that
technology as part of NCAP. To the
extent that research does inform future
rulemaking efforts or revisions to NCAP,
the agency will appropriately engage the
public through public comment and
other means during those processes.
NHTSA developed the draft test
procedures made available today to
research ways to objectively and
practically assess the performance of
ADAS technologies presently available
to consumers on certain vehicles sold in
the United States. NHTSA highlights
that some of the research test
procedures included in this RFC are in
the early stages of development, while
others are closer to being fully
developed.
For light vehicles, these include:
• Active Parking Assist (APA) 1
• Blind Spot Detection (BSD) 2
• Blind Spot Intervention (BSI) 3
• Intersection Safety Assist (ISA) 4
• Opposing Traffic Safety Assist
(OTSA) 5
• Pedestrian Automatic Emergency
Braking (PAEB) 6
1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(2019, August). Active park assist system
confirmation test (DOT HS 812 714). Washington,
DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
2 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(2018, June). Blind spot detection system
confirmation test (working draft). Washington, DC:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
3 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(2019, July). Blind spot intervention system
confirmation test (working draft). Washington, DC:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
4 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(2019, September). Intersection safety assist system
confirmation test (working draft). Washington, DC:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
5 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(2019, September). Opposing traffic safety assist
system confirmation test (working draft).
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
6 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(2019, April). Pedestrian automatic emergency
brake system confirmation test (working draft).
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
E:\FR\FM\21NON1.SGM
21NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64403-64405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25223]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0082; Notice 2]
Yokohama Tire Corporation, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Yokohama Tire Corporation (YTC) has determined that certain
Yokohama RY023 brand replacement commercial tires do not fully comply
with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New
Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536
kilograms (10,000 lbs) and Motorcycles. YTC filed a noncompliance
report dated July 12, 2018. YTC subsequently petitioned NHTSA on July
31, 2018, and submitted a supplemental petition on February 6, 2019,
for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces the grant of
YTC's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abraham Diaz, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
telephone (202) 366-5310, facsimile (202) 366-3081.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: YTC has determined that certain Yokohama brand RY023
replacement commercial tires do not fully comply with paragraph S6.5(d)
and (j) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New
Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536
kilograms (10,000 lbs) and Motorcycles (49 CFR 571.119). YTC filed a
noncompliance report dated July 12, 2018, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defects and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. YTC subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on July 31, 2018, and submitted a supplemental
petition on February 6, 2019, for an exemption from the notification
and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556,
Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
Notice of receipt of YTC's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on June 21, 2019, in the Federal Register (84 FR
29280). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2018-0082.''
II. Tires Involved: Approximately 4,704 Yokohama RY023 size 11R22.5
16(LR H) 146/143L commercial tires, manufactured between February 2,
2018, and May 17, 2018, are potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance: YTC explains that the noncompliance was due to
a mold error in which one sidewall, the serial sidewall, of subject
tires incorrectly state the ply rating, load range and load capacity as
required by paragraph S6.5 (d) and (j) of FMVSS No. 119.
Specifically, the tires were marked:
14 PR LOAD RANGE G
MAX. LOAD SINGLE 2800 kg (6175 lbs) at 720 kPa (105psi) COLD
[[Page 64404]]
MAX. LOAD DUAL 2650 kg (5840 lbs) at 720 kPa (105 psi) COLD
When they should have been marked:
16 PR LOAD RANGE H
MAX. LOAD SINGLE 3000 kg (6610 lbs) at 830 kPa (120 psi) COLD
MAX. LOAD DUAL 2725 kg (6005 lbs) at 830 kPa (120 psi) COLD
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S6.5(d) and (j) of FMVSS No. 119,
includes the requirements relevant to this petition:
Except as specified in paragraph S6.5, each tire shall be
marked on each sidewall with the information specified in paragraphs
(a) through (j) of paragraph S6.5.
The maximum load rating and corresponding inflation
pressure of the tire, shown as follows:
(Mark on tires rated for single and dual load): Max load single
__kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold. Max load dual __kg (__lb) at __kPa
(__psi) cold.
(Mark on tires rated for only for single load): Max load single
__kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold.
Markings must contain the letter designating the tire load
range.
V. Summary of Petition: YTC described the subject noncompliance and
stated its belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, YTC submitted the following arguments:
1. This Petition concerns Yokohama 11R22.5 16PR RY023 commercial
truck and bus replacement tires whose branding information incorrectly
states the ply rating, load range and load capacity on one side (serial
side) only, while the branding information on the other side (opposite
serial side) is correct for the subject tires. Because of this mold
branding error, these tires are not in compliance with the tire
labeling requirement found in 49 CFR 571.119 S6.5(d) and (j), even
though all of these tires were manufactured with the correct ply rating
and load range.
2. YTC implemented verification countermeasures to prevent any
recurrence of any incorrect tire markings. Further investigation
determined that the suspect period ended when the incorrect mold had
been removed from production on May 17, 2018, in the 19th production
week of 2018. The 764 tires in containment will be repaired before they
are sold.
3. Significantly, these tires were manufactured as designed and
meet or exceed all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety performance
standards. While the sidewall markings are correct on the opposite
serial side, the sidewall markings on the serial side understate the
construction and capacity of the subject tires. The misbranding of
these tires is not a safety concern and also has no impact on the
retreading, repairing and recycling industries. The affected tire mold
has already been corrected and all future production will have the
correct material shown on the sidewall.
4. NHTSA has studied the impact of tire labeling information on
safety in the context of its rulemaking efforts under the
Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation
(TREAD) Act. YTC stated that NHTSA's analysis concluded that tire
construction information on a tire's sidewall is not relied upon by
dealers and consumers in the selling or purchasing of tires and has an
inconsequential impact on motor vehicle safety. In addition, YTC cited
the following petitions that the agency has previously granted for
similar noncompliances: See Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Grant of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 83 FR 13002
(March 26, 2018) and Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Grant of Petition for
Decision for Inconsequential Noncompliance, 82 FR 18210 (April 17,
2017).
The Agency has studied the implications of tire labeling
information on motor vehicle safety during the rulemaking process for
the TREAD Act and the merits for a decision regarding the subject
inconsequential noncompliance petition aligns with previous
inconsequential petitions with similar noncompliances the agency has
granted and as cited by YTC.
YTC concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
YTC's complete petition and all supporting documents are available
by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at:
https://www.regulations.gov and by following the online search
instructions to locate the docket number as listed in the title of this
notice.
VI. NHTSA's Analysis: The purpose of the label stating the tire's
load carrying capabilities as described in section S6.5(d), and the
load range marking letter required by paragraph S6.5(j), is to inform
tire purchasers and end-users about the load capacity of the tire. In
the case of the subject tires, YTC explained that the information the
load range letter is meant to convey understates the construction and
capacity of the subject tire RY023 model and size 11R22.5.
Specifically, the tires were marked with the load range ``G'' when in
fact the correct load range is ``H.'' Because the tires were designed
for the higher load capacity, ``H'' at 3000 kg for single load and 2725
kg for dual load, if a consumer followed the load range ``G'' as
marked, indicating the tire was capable of withstanding a 2800 kg for
single load and 2650 kg for dual load, they would be using the tire in
a load-carrying capacity lower than the actual load-carrying capacity
of the subject tires. On February 25, 2013, a similar petition for
inconsequential noncompliance on was granted to Guizhou tyres with
respect of a mismarking of a tire load range, in which was incorrectly
marked as ``F'' when they should be tire load range ``G'' (see 78 FR
12828).
Because these subject tires have a greater load carrying capability
than the marking load range ``G'' indicates, there is no risk of these
tires being overloaded and thus, no risk to safety based on the
incorrect label.
VII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA
finds that YTC has met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS
No. 119 noncompliance in the affected tires is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. Accordingly, YTC's petition is hereby granted and YTC
is consequently exempted from the obligation of providing notification
of, and a free remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
30120.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject tires that YTC no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve tire
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after YTC
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
[[Page 64405]]
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-25223 Filed 11-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
