[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 20, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67513-67516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-18578]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2023-0052; Notice 1]


Toyo Tire Holdings of Americas, Inc., Receipt of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Toyo Tire Holdings of Americas, Inc. (Toyo Tire) has 
determined that certain Proxes ST III passenger tires do not fully 
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New 
Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Toyo Tire filed a 
noncompliance report dated July 19, 2023, and subsequently petitioned 
NHTSA (the ``Agency'') on August 17, 2023, for a decision that the 
subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle 
safety. This document announces receipt of Toyo Tire's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before September 19, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data, 
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the 
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be 
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building 
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Docket 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 for Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging 
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to (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

[[Page 67514]]

comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies 
are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that comments you 
have submitted by mail were received, please enclose a stamped, self-
addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received 
will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including 
any personal information provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of 
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the 
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials 
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be 
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will 
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority 
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials 
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and 
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at 
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for 
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown 
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a 
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayton Lindley, General Engineer, 
NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (325) 655-0547.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    I. Overview: Toyo Tire determined that certain Proxes ST III 
passenger tires do not fully comply with paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS 
No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles (49 CFR 
571.139).
    Toyo Tire filed a noncompliance report dated July 19, 2023, 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility 
and Reports. Toyo Tire petitioned NHTSA on August 17, 2023, 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.
    This notice of receipt of Toyo Tire's petition is published under 
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or 
another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Tires Involved: Approximately 232 Toyo Proxes ST III passenger 
tires, manufactured between May 21, 2023, and May 27, 2023, were 
reported by the manufacturer.
    III. Noncompliance: Toyo Tire explains that the noncompliance is 
due to a mold error causing the subject tires to contain a tire 
identification number (TIN) with a three-digit date code rather than a 
four-digit date code as required by paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 
139 and 49 CFR part 574. Specifically, the subject tires were marked 
with an incorrect date code of ``213'' rather than the compliant four-
digit date code, ``2123.''
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 139 and 49 
CFR 574.5(b)(3) include the requirements relevant to this petition. 
Each tire (manufactured on or after September 1, 2009) must be labeled 
with the TIN, as required by 49 CFR part 574, on the intended outboard 
sidewall of the tire. The date code, consisting of four numerical 
symbols, is the final group of the TIN and must identify the tire's 
week and year of manufacture. The first and second symbols of the date 
code must identify the week of the year by using ``01'' for the first 
full calendar week in each year, ``02'' for the second full calendar 
week, and so on. The third and fourth symbols of the date code must 
identify the last two digits of the year of manufacture.
    V. Summary of Toyo Tire's Petition: The following views and 
arguments presented in this section, ``V. Summary of Toyo Tire's 
Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by Toyo Tire. They 
have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect the views of 
the Agency. Toyo Tire describes the subject noncompliance and contends 
that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor 
vehicle safety.
    Toyo Tire states that, except for the subject noncompliance, the 
affected tires comply with the performance and labeling requirements of 
FMVSS No. 139 and the requirements of 49 CFR part 574. Toyo Tire also 
says that it is not aware of any complaints or injuries related to the 
subject tires.
    Toyo Tire summarizes NHTSA's regulatory history for tire labeling 
requirements and the purpose of these requirements, specifically 
relating to the date code. Toyo Tire asserts that the TIN date code 
``primarily serves to facilitate identification of tires in the event 
the tires need to be recalled for a noncompliance that is consequential 
to safety or for a safety related defect.'' Toyo Tire also notes 
NHTSA's view that the date code offers consumers valuable information 
regarding the actual age of the tire.
    Toyo Tire argues that the incorrect date code on the subject tires 
would not hinder the identification and notification process in the 
event of a recall. Toyo Tire explains that the date code accurately 
indicates the week of the subject tires' manufacture but is missing a 
character indicating the year of manufacture. Toyo Tire says that 
despite being noncompliant, these TINs uniquely identify the tires, 
enabling consumers to accurately identify them in the event of a 
recall.
    Toyo Tire contends that prior Agency decisions on petitions for 
inconsequential noncompliance involving ``incorrect date codes, missing 
date codes, misplaced date codes, and inverted date codes'' were 
granted because NHTSA found that the noncompliance did not inhibit the 
identification of the affected tires. Toyo Tire offers the following as 
examples:
    1. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., (Toyo Tire incorrectly cites Cooper 
Tire & Rubber Co.) Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 
Noncompliance, 71 FR 4396 (Jan. 26, 2006). In that decision, the agency 
agreed that the missing date code was inconsequential because a 
consumer notification of a recall of the tires could be accomplished by 
referring to the noncompliant TIN.
    2. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Grant of Application for Decision 
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 60 FR 57617 (Nov. 16, 1995). In this 
decision NHTSA agreed that placing the date code at the beginning of 
the TIN rather than at the end was inconsequential in this case because 
enough information exists on the tires to trace the tires back to their 
plant of manufacture should a future recall be required. Additionally, 
any recall notification letter would explain the transposed marking so 
that owners could properly identify the tires.
    3. Yokohama Tire Corp., Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 71 FR 33333 (Jun. 8, 2006). In this 
decision, NHTSA agreed that exceeding the spacing limit for the date 
code in the TIN was inconsequential to safety in this case because 
correct information is present, and it is therefore likely to achieve 
the safety purposes of the requirement.
    4. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 43708 (Jul. 5, 2016). In this 
decision, the affected tires contained an inverted date code and NHTSA 
agreed with the petitioner that

[[Page 67515]]

the error was inconsequential to safety because it is not likely to be 
misidentified.
    Toyo Tire believes that the granting of its petition would align 
with NHTSA's decisions on these prior petitions because the date code 
on the subject tires provides adequate information for consumers to 
properly identify the tires and for the tires to be properly traced to 
the manufacturing plant. Toyo Tire says that it has also updated its 
website to accept a 12-digit TIN, allowing consumers to register the 
tires with the incorrectly marked date code.
    Toyo Tire says that the subject tires contain a unique 12-digit 
TIN, as opposed to the standard 13 digits for properly labeled tires, 
ensuring that there will be no duplication in the future. Toyo Tire 
explains that the mislabeling occurred at the manufacturing plant 
during a period when a manual process was temporarily being used to 
enter codes into a new piece of equipment used for stamping the TIN 
plates. Toyo Tire says that it has since corrected this issue by 
implementing an automated process that directly transmits the codes to 
the stamping equipment. Additionally, Toyo Tire says that it has 
revised its quality inspection process to ensure that the date code is 
verified by two people each time a new plate is installed into a mold. 
Toyo Tire notes that in the aforementioned 2016 Cooper Tire decision 81 
FR 43708, the nature of the labeling error did not prevent the correct 
identification of the affected tires. Similarly, Toyo Tire contends 
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle 
safety because the affected tires otherwise comply with the marking and 
performance requirements of FMVSS No. 139, and the primary purpose of 
the TIN markings is fulfilled.
    Next, Toyo Tire argues that the incorrectly marked date code on the 
subject tires is unlikely to mislead consumers as to the age of the 
tire. According to Toyo Tire, NHTSA's secondary purpose in adopting the 
four-digit date code was to prevent confusing consumers with respect to 
the actual age of the tire. Expanding the date code from three digits 
to four would result in more accurate date codes, simplifying the 
process for prospective consumers to determine the age of the tires 
they are considering purchasing.
    Toyo Tire then cites NHTSA's tire aging work published in March 
2014 and states that NHTSA found that adding a tire aging requirement 
to FMVSS No. 139 was unnecessary.
    Overall, Toyo Tire says that NHTSA's safety concerns regarding tire 
aging were attenuated based on the improved standards in FMVSS No. 139 
and mandatory tire-pressure monitoring systems. Furthermore, Toyo Tire 
asserts that the data that raised aging concerns primarily came from 
states in the Sun Belt Region and, as a result, NHTSA shifted its focus 
toward consumer awareness programs. Based on this focus, Toyo Tire says 
NHTSA's determinations on inconsequentiality petitions concerning the 
date code have distinguished between noncompliances where mislabeling 
would not mislead consumers about the actual age of the tires and those 
where mislabeling would lead consumers to believe the tires were newer 
than they actually are. Toyo Tire provides NHTSA's decision on another 
petition by Cooper Tire (86 FR 47726; Aug. 26, 2021) as an example, in 
which the affected tires contained the date code ``1723'' rather than 
the correct date code ``2317''. Toyo Tire states this petition was 
denied due to concerns that dealers may store tires for multiple years 
before selling them, leading to potential confusion for consumers 
regarding the tires' actual age. Additionally, while steps to identify 
the mislabeling were acknowledged, Toyo Tire says NHTSA determined that 
these actions did not negate the safety risk caused by the incorrect 
date code as tires may not be registered or may change hands subsequent 
to registration. In its rationale, Toyo Tire says that NHTSA 
specifically differentiated this case from a 1998 petition by Cooper 
Tire where NHTSA determined that the absence of a date code on the 
affected tires was inconsequential to vehicle safety. In that case, 
Toyo Tire says NHTSA found that the missing date code did not mislead 
consumers about the age of the tire. Conversely, NHTSA granted a 
petition by Michelin North America (MNA) where the date code was 
mislabeled as ``0126'' rather than ``0216.'' (81 FR 76412; Nov. 2, 
2016). Toyo Tire believes that the subject noncompliance will not 
impact customers' ability to identify the subject tires in the event of 
a recall because Toyo Tire is accepting registration cards and internet 
registrations for the mislabeled tires, and they are prepared to 
address inquiries from customers regarding the subject tires. Toyo Tire 
believes these points support a grant of its petition.
    Toyo Tire argues that the three-digit date code on the subject 
tires does not have the misleading effect found in NHTSA's 2021 denial 
of the Cooper Tire petition. Unlike the mislabeling in the denied 
Cooper Tire petition, the three-digit date in the subject tires would 
not mislead purchasers as to the age of the tire. The missing digit 
causes the date code to not conform to a compliant four-digit date code 
and cannot be interpreted as a future date code. Toyo Tire contends 
that because NHTSA discontinued the use of three-digit date codes over 
20 years ago, any confusion regarding the date code is more likely to 
suggest that the tire is significantly older than it actually is. Toyo 
Tire further explains that the mislabeled date code on the subject 
tires would indicate that the tires were manufactured in the 21st week 
of 1993, over 30 years ago. Overall, Toyo Tire believes that consumers 
will readily notice the incorrect date code if they consult online 
sources to interpret it.
    Toyo Tire adds that while NHTSA did not express concerns about tire 
aging in the MNA decision (81 FR 76412; Nov. 2, 2016), the impact of 
the mislabeling in that case is comparable to the subject 
noncompliance. Toyo Tire says that other possible interpretations of 
the subject noncompliance would be that the tires were manufactured in 
2013 (based on the last two digits, ``13'') or in 2021 (based on the 
first two digits, ``21'') Since the actual year of manufacture for the 
subject tires is 2023, either of these interpretations would again 
suggest that the tires are older than they actually are and would not 
pose a risk of the consumer using the subject tire beyond its maximum 
service life. Toyo Tire notes that, in contrast, Cooper Tire's petition 
was denied because the tires would appear newer than their actual age.
    Toyo Tire says that it recognizes the possibility that the 
mislabeled date code on the subject tires could be mistaken as 
indicating the year of manufacture as ``2033,'' 2043,'' ``2053,'' etc. 
However, Toyo Tire considers this risk remote, given these years are 
far in the future. Toyo Tire believes that the risk is comparable to 
the mislabeled date code in MNA's petition (81 FR 76412, Nov. 2, 2016), 
which NHTSA deemed inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Further, 
Toyo Tire believes that the subject noncompliance poses an even lesser 
risk than MNA's noncompliance because the three-digit date code is more 
likely to indicate an error. Therefore, Toyo Tire is confident that 
consumers will not be misled into believing that the subject tires are 
newer than their actual date of manufacture, and the subject 
noncompliance does not create a risk that the tire would be used beyond 
the maximum service life.
    Toyo Tire concludes by stating its belief that the subject 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety 
and its petition to be

[[Page 67516]]

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.
    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 Toyo Tire 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 Toyo Tire 
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

(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. 2024-18578 Filed 8-19-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P