```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 221 (Friday, November 15, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 90350-90351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-26539]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0034; Notice 2]

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

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

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Toyo Tire Holdings of Americas, Inc., (Toyo) has determined 
that certain Open Country R/T light truck 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 Pounds) and Motorcycles. Toyo filed a noncompliance 
report dated March 15, 2021, and later amended it on April 2, 2021. 
Toyo simultaneously petitioned NHTSA on April 2, 2021, for a decision 
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to 
motor vehicle safety. This notice announces the grant of Toyo's 
petition.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Toyo has determined that certain Toyo Open Country R/T light truck 
tires, do not fully comply with paragraph S6.5(j) of FMVSS No. 119, New 
Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of More Than 4,536 
Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) and Motorcycles (49 CFR 571.119). Toyo filed 
a noncompliance report dated March 15, 2021, and later amended it on 
April 2, 2021, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance 
Responsibility and Reports. Toyo simultaneously petitioned NHTSA on 
April 2, 2021, 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 Toyo's petition was published with a 30-day 
public comment period, on May 19, 2022, in the Federal Register (87 FR 
30556). 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-2021-0034.''

II. Tires Involved

    Approximately 518 Toyo Open Country R/T light truck tires, size 
35X12.50R20LT 125Q, manufactured between January 29, 2021, and March 8, 
2021, are potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    Toyo explains that the noncompliance was due to a mold error in 
which the sidewall with the partial TIN incorrectly states the load 
range as required by paragraph S6.5(j) of FMVSS No. 119. Specifically, 
the tires were marked: ``LOAD RANGE E MAX.LOAD 1450 kg (3195 LBS) AT 
450 kPa (65 PSI) COLD'' when they should have been marked: ``LOAD RANGE 
F MAX.LOAD 1650 kg (3640 LBS) AT 550 kPa (80 PSI) COLD.''

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S6.5(j) of FMVSS No. 119 includes the requirements 
relevant to this petition. The subject tires are required to be marked 
on each sidewall with the letter designating the tire load range.

V. Summary of Toyo's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V. 
Summary of Toyo's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by 
Toyo. They do not reflect the views of the Agency. Toyo describes the 
subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is 
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Toyo submitted the following reasoning:
    Toyo explains that the noncompliance occurred as production 
transitioned from producing the load range `E' tire to production of 
the load range `F' tire.
    Toyo states that ``the affected tire mold was immediately corrected 
after this issue was discovered and all future production will have the 
correct load range letter shown on the non-serial sidewall.''
    Toyo explains that ``the 35X12.50R20LT tire size, Load Range E 
tires have a maximum load carrying capacity of 1,450 kg (3,195 lbs.) at 
450 kPa (65 PSI); Load Range F tires have a maximum load carrying 
capacity of 1,650 kg (3,640 lbs.) at 550 kPa (80 PSI). Therefore, Toyo 
believes that in the event that ``a consumer were to rely on the 
incorrect load range designation on the non-serial sidewall, there 
would be no associated risk of overloading.''
    Toyo says that NHTSA has granted prior inconsequentiality petitions 
for noncompliances that are similar to the one described in the subject 
petition and cited sections from the following notices granting those 
petitions:
     Guizhou Tyre Corporation; Grant of Petition for Decision 
of Inconsequential Noncompliance. 78 FR 12828, February 25, 2013.
     Yokohama Tire Corporation, Grant of Petition for Decision 
of Inconsequential Noncompliance. 84 FR. 64403, November 21, 2019.
     Tireco, Inc., Ruling on Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance. 81 FR 58550, August 25, 2016.
    Toyo says that the subject tires ``meet all other performance and 
regulatory requirements of FMVSS No. 119.'' Furthermore, Toyo says that 
it ``has not received any complaints, claims, or warranty adjustments 
related to this noncompliance.''
    Toyo concludes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as 
it relates to motor vehicle safety as these tires have a higher load 
carrying capacity than the incorrect marking indicates, therefore, the 
marking will not cause an operator to overload the tires. Thus, Toyo 
believes 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.

[[Page 90351]]

VI. NHTSA's Analysis

    In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses 
on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event 
against which a recall would otherwise protect.\1\ In general, NHTSA 
does not consider the absence of complaints or injuries when 
determining if a noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. The 
absence of complaints does not mean vehicle occupants have not 
experienced a safety issue, nor does it mean that there will not be 
safety issues in the future.\2\ Further, because each inconsequential 
noncompliance petition must be evaluated on its own facts and 
determinations are highly fact-dependent, NHTSA does not consider prior 
determinations as binding precedent. Petitioners are reminded that they 
have the burden of persuading NHTSA that the noncompliance is 
inconsequential to safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding 
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no 
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system 
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods. 
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using 
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly 
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
    \2\ See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 
12, 2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 
754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk 
when it ``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden 
engine fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some such 
hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in 
the future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has evaluated the merits of the petition submitted by Toyo 
and is granting Toyo's request for relief from notification and remedy 
of the affected tires based on the following.
    1. Based on a review of Toyo's submission, the agency has no basis 
to believe that the subject tires do not meet all performance and 
marking requirements of FMVSS No. 119 with the exception of the 
incorrect load markings.
    2. NHTSA agrees that the incorrect marking will not cause the 
operator to overload the tires because the marked load carrying 
capacity is lower than the actual load carrying capacity of the tire.

VII. NHTSA's Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that Toyo has met 
its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 119 noncompliance 
in the affected tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 
Accordingly, Toyo's petition is hereby granted, and Toyo 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, this decision 
only applies to the subject tires that Toyo no longer controlled at the 
time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the 
granting of 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 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. 2024-26539 Filed 11-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
```