Document ID: NHTSA-2008-0074-0003
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.
Posted Date: 2009-01-21T05:00Z

[Federal Register: January 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 12)]
[Notices]               
[Page 3668-3669]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21ja09-145]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0074; Notice 2]

 
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Denial of Petition for Decision 
of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear), has determined that 
certain passenger car tires manufactured during the week of January 7, 
2008 failed to comply with the labeling requirements of paragraph 
S5.5.1(a) of 49 CFR 571.139, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 139 New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. FMVSS 
No. 139 requires that radial tires manufactured before September 1, 
2009 for use on motor vehicles that have a gross vehicle weight (GVWR) 
rating of 10,000 pounds or less must be labeled with the Tire 
Identification Number (TIN) on one side of the tire and a full TIN or 
partial TIN on the opposite side. Pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Goodyear 
filed a noncompliance report with the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) notifying NHTSA of the noncompliance.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), and 49 CFR part 556, 
on March 28, 2008, Goodyear submitted a petition for an exemption from 
the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 
on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety. NHTSA published notice of receipt of the petition, with 
a 30-day public comment period, on June 12, 2008 in the Federal 
Register. 73 FR 33486. In response to the petition, NHTSA did not 
receive any comments. To view the petition and all supporting 
documents, log onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web 
site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search 
instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2008-0074.''
    For further information on this decision, contact Mr. George 
Gillespie, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, telephone (202) 
366-5299, facsimile (202) 366-7002.

Summary of Goodyear's Petition

    Goodyear petitioned NHTSA for a determination that a noncompliance 
in approximately 18 Goodyear Eagle RS-A P235/55R18 99V passenger car 
tires manufactured in its Lawton, Oklahoma plant during the week of 
January 7, 2008 is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Paragraph 
S5.5.1(a) of FMVSS No. 139 requires that radial tires manufactured 
before September 1, 2009 for motor vehicles less than 10,000 GVWR be 
permanently labeled with (1) a full TIN required by 49 CFR Part 574 on 
one sidewall of the tire, and (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.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Tires 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its petition, Goodyear stated that the 18 Goodyear Eagle RS-A 
P235/55R18 99V passenger car tires were mismarked.
    Goodyear described the noncompliance as a failure to mark the tires 
with a complete or partial TIN on the sidewall opposite the sidewall 
with the full TIN. Thus, Goodyear describes the noncompliance as 
follows:
    Actual stamping is ``NOT FOR SALE'' (on one sidewall) Correct 
stamping should be: ``M60Y LNER.'' (on that sidewall).
    Goodyear makes the argument that this noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because the tires meet or 
exceed all other applicable FMVSS performance standards, and that the 
tires were designed, manufactured and tested to the standards and 
regulations as applicable and they meet all regulatory performance test 
requirements.
    Goodyear also explains its belief that the Tire Identification 
Number (TIN) and the partial TIN are used to properly identify tires 
that are involved in a safety campaign. Goodyear 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. Goodyear compared this situation to that of any tire involved 
in a safety campaign that required the 4-digit week and year code to 
determine if it were involved.
    Goodyear also stated that it has corrected the problem that caused 
these errors so that they will not be repeated in future production.
    In summation, Goodyear states that it believes that because the 
noncompliances are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety that no 
corrective action is warranted.

NHTSA's Decision

    NHTSA does not agree that Goodyear's noncompliance with FMVSS No. 
139 is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. As discussed below, the 
tire markings required by paragraph S5.5.1(a) of FMVSS No. 139 provide 
valuable information to assist consumers in determining if their tires 
are the subject of a safety recall.
    The Firestone tire recalls in year 2000 highlighted the difficulty 
that consumers experienced when attempting to determine whether a tire 
is subject to a recall if the 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 Firestone tires involved in those recalls,

[[Page 3669]]

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. Without any TIN 
information on the outside sidewalls of tires, the difficulty and 
inconvenience of obtaining the TIN by consumers results in a reduction 
of the number of people who respond to a tire recall campaign and the 
number of motorists who unknowingly continue to drive vehicles with 
potentially unsafe tires.
    Goodyear suggests that a recall of these tires could include an 
instruction to check 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 that locating a TIN under these 
circumstances poses serious impediments to the successful recall of the 
noncompliant tire, 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. As previously discussed, 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. Accordingly, the omission of a TIN or partial TIN on either 
sidewall is now considered to be a serious safety problem.
    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, 
Goodyear'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: January 13, 2009.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
 [FR Doc. E9-1012 Filed 1-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P