11190 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

1 Yokohama Tire Company (YTC) is a 

replacement equipment manufacturer incorporated 

in the State of California. 

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. 

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) 

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 

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). 

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: 

http://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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11191 

3Tires 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. 

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 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2012–0015] 

Insurance Cost Information Regulation 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of Availability. 

SUMMARY: 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 

http://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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES