[Federal Register: August 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 49237-49238]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20au08-116]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0009; Notice 2]
Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, LLC, Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, LLC (BFNT) determined
that certain tires that it manufactured in September and October of
2007, 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, BFNT
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 November 30, 2007, BFNT 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 January 29, 2008, in the Federal
Register. 73 FR 5261. 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-2008-0009.''
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 BFNT's Petition
On November 30, 2007, BFNT petitioned NHTSA for a determination
that a noncompliance with approximately 3,963 Bridgestone brand P235/
60R17, Dueler H/T 684 II tires, produced in the Aiken plant during the
DOT weeks 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42 in 2007 is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. See 73 FR 5261. 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, BFNT stated that the 3,963 P235/60R17 size
Bridgestone Dueler H/T 684 II tires, produced at its Aiken plant (DOT
serial code is 7XOUBD43807 through 7XOUBD44207) were mismarked. BFNT
reported that
[[Page 49238]]
1,862 of the noncompliant tires are within its control and already
remedied, and 2,101 remain in the replacement market in the U.S.
BFNT 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, BFNT describes the noncompliance as follows:
Actual stamping is BLANK. (on one sidewall). Correct stamping
should be: 7XOUBD4 (on that sidewall).
BFNT argued that the noncompliant tires meet or exceed all
performance requirements of FMVSS No. 139, and, that the labeling
noncompliance will have no impact on the operational performance or
safety of vehicles on which these tires are mounted.
BFNT further claimed that the TIN only becomes important in the
event of a safety recall campaign so that the consumer may properly
identify the recalled tire(s). The noncompliant tires here are marked
in a manner that is sufficient for notice to consumers and compliant
with tire labeling requirements prior to the adoption of the new tire
marking requirements in 2002. BFNT contends, therefore, that for this
noncompliance, any safety recall campaign communication, if necessary,
could include in the listing of recalled TINs with a direction to the
consumer to read both sidewalls of each tire on the vehicle for the
TINs or partial TINs so that the consumer would know that these
noncompliant tires are included in any future recall.
BFNT requested that NHTSA consider its petition and grant an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120 on the basis that the noncompliance described above is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
NHTSA's Decision
NHTSA does not agree that BFNT'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 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, Congress passed and the
president signed into law the Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act on November 1, 2000. Pub.
L. 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 the
reduction of the number of people who respond to a tire recall campaign
and a number of motorists who unknowingly continue to drive vehicles
with potentially unsafe tires.
BFNT 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,
BFNT'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: August 14, 2008.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. E8-19324 Filed 8-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P