[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 97 (Thursday, May 20, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28319-28321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12057]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0056; Notice 1]


Yokohama Tire Corporation, Receipt of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Yokohama Tire Corporation, (YTC) \1\, has determined that 
approximately 8,238 of its P215/60R15 93H AVID H4S passenger car 
replacement tires, manufactured between December 2, 2007, and September 
19, 2009, do not fully 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 dated January 19, 
2010 pursuant to 49 CFR

[[Page 28320]]

Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Yokohama Tire Corporation (YTC) a replacement equipment 
manufacturer is incorporated in the state of California with its 
principal address at 601 South Acacia Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92831.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule 
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.
    This notice of receipt of YTC's petition is published under 49 
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or 
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    Affected are approximately 8,238 size P215/60R15 93H Yokohama AVID 
H4S brand passenger car replacement tires manufactured between December 
2, 2007, and September 19, 2009, at YTC's plant located in Salem, 
Virginia. Approximately 7,836 of these tires have been delivered to 
YTC's customers. The remaining tires (approximately 402) are being held 
in YTC's possession until they are correctly relabeled.
    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, these provisions 
only apply to the approximately 7,836 \2\ tires that have already 
passed from the manufacturer to an owner, purchaser, or dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ YTC's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR Part 556, 
requests an agency decision to exempt YTC as replacement equipment 
manufacturer from the notification and recall responsibilities of 49 
CFR Part 573 for 7,836 of the affected tires. However, the agency 
cannot relieve FTS distributors 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 FTS recognized that the subject noncompliance existed. Those 
tires must be brought into conformance, exported, or destroyed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph S5.5 of FMVSS No. 139 requires in pertinent part:

    S5.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in paragraphs (a) 
through (i) of S5.5, each tire must be marked on each sidewall with 
the information specified in S5.5(a) through (d) and on one sidewall 
with the information specified in S5.5(e) through (i) according to 
the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this standard. The markings 
must be placed between the maximum section width and the bead on at 
least one sidewall, unless the maximum section width of the tire is 
located in an area that is not more than one-fourth of the distance 
from the bead to the shoulder of the tire. If the maximum section 
width falls within that area, those markings must appear between the 
bead and a point one-half the distance from the bead to the shoulder 
of the tire, on at least one sidewall. The markings must be in 
letters and numerals not less than 0.078 inches high and raised 
above or sunk below the tire surface not less than 0.015 inches. * * 
*
    S5.5.1 Tire Identification Number
    (a) * * *
    (b) Tires manufactured on or after September 1, 2009. Each tire 
must be labeled with the tire identification number required by 49 
CFR part 574 on the intended outboard sidewall of the tire. Except 
for retreaded tires, either the tire identification number or a 
partial tire identification number, containing all characters in the 
tire identification number, 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. Except for retreaded tires, if a 
tire does not have an intended outboard sidewall, the tire must be 
labeled with the tire identification number required by 49 CFR part 
574 on one sidewall and with either the tire identification number 
or a partial tire identification number, containing all characters 
in the tire identification number except for the date code and, at 
the discretion of the manufacturer, any optional code, on the other 
sidewall.

    YTC explains that the noncompliance is that, due to a mold labeling 
error, the markings on the non-compliant tires omits the partial tire 
identification number on one of the sidewalls as required by paragraph 
S5.5.1(b). YTC explains that the non-compliant tires include the full 
Tire Identification Number (TIN) on one sidewall but omits the partial 
serial number on the other sidewall. YTC reported that this 
noncompliance was brought to their attention when ``one of several 
molds were being certified and readied as part of a production quantity 
of replacement tires for the USA.''
    YTC argues that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety because the noncompliant sidewall marking does not 
affect the strength of the tires and all other labeling requirements 
have been met.
    YTC supports this conclusion with the following arguments:

     Warranty and claim data for the subject tire model, for 
which production has been continual since November 2002, reveals a 
very small number of tire warranty returns and no reports of claims 
associated with accidents or tire failure incidents.
     The TIN becomes important in the event of a safety 
campaign and enables the owners to properly identify tires included 
in a captive action campaign. While the subject tires are 
noncompliant with the current FMVSS No. 139 sidewall marking 
regulation that requires a full TIN on the sidewall and at minimum a 
partial TIN on the other sidewall, these subject tires have a full 
TIN on one sidewall that can be used in case of a special campaign. 
These tires are marked in the same manner that was the requirement 
for many years prior to FMVSS No. 139 that now requires the 
application of the additional TIN identifier in a full or partial 
form. The absence of one TIN identifier on the one tire sidewall 
does not prohibit the ability to identify the tire as part of a 
safety campaign or tire recall when required.

    YTC concludes in part that ``the actual tire performance is not 
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety because the 
actual tire performance is not affected by this noncompliance, and in 
the unlikely event that the tires become subject to a safety or recall 
campaign, the tires can be identified by the single TIN on one sidewall 
of the tire.''
    Furthermore, YTC points out three other factors that support its 
petition:

     All of the subject tires have been tested and certified 
compliant with all of the other durability requirements of FMVSS No. 
139 for high speed, endurance, and low inflation pressure 
performance, and physical dimensions, resistance to bead unseating 
and strength.
     There have been a very small number of tire warranty 
returns (the incorrect markings were found when molds were being 
certified and readied).
     YTC has designed and implemented verification 
countermeasures to prevent any re-occurrence of any incorrect tire 
markings.

    Supported by all of the above stated reasons, YTC believes that the 
described noncompliance of its tires to meet the requirements of FMVSS 
No. 139 is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its 
petition, to exempt it from providing recall notification of 
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall 
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    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.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and 
notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by 
any of the following methods:
    a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket

[[Page 28321]]

Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on 
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays.
    c. Electronically: By logging onto the Federal Docket Management 
System (FDMS) website at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed to 1-
202-493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater 
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of 
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in 
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish 
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please 
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that 
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the 
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online 
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act 
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received 
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will 
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials 
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be 
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or 
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal 
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: June 21, 2010.

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

    Issued on: May 12, 2010.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2010-12057 Filed 5-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P