|
|---|
|
Toyo Tire Holdings of Americas, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Otto G. Matheke III Date: 20 August 2024 Subjects: American Government  , Safety, Tires
Topic: Toyo |
[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