[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