<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 1 (Friday, January 2, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 1 (Friday, January 2, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 189-191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-24206]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0065; Notice 2]
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Formerly Cooper Tire & Rubber
Company, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear), which acquired
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (Cooper Tire), has determined that certain
Cooper Discoverer SRX replacement passenger car tires do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New
Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Cooper Tire filed a
noncompliance report dated August 19, 2021, and amended it on August
24, 2021. Additionally, Goodyear petitioned NHTSA on August 20, 2021
for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces and explains the
denial of Goodyear's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayton Lindley, General Engineer,
NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (325) 655-0547,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#89e3e8f0fde6e7a7e5e0e7ede5ecf0c9ede6fda7eee6ff"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d4beb5ada0bbbafab8bdbab0b8b1ad94b0bba0fab3bba2">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Goodyear has determined that certain Cooper Discoverer
SRX passenger car tires do not fully comply with 49 CFR 574.5--and
therefore also the requirements of paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No.
139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles (49 CFR 571.139).
Cooper Tire filed a noncompliance report dated August 19, 2021, and
amended it on August 24, 2021, under 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Goodyear additionally
petitioned NHTSA on August 20, 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, under 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part
556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
Notice of receipt of Goodyear's petition was published with a 30-
day public comment period on April 18, 2024, in the Federal Register
(89 FR 27831). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2021-0065.''
II. Tires Involved: Approximately 730 Cooper Discoverer SRX, size
255/55R20 110H XL, replacement passenger car tires, manufactured
between March 28, 2021 and April 24, 2021.
III. Noncompliance: Goodyear explains that the tires are
noncompliant because the Tire Information Number (TIN) on the subject
tires exceeds the number of symbols allowed and
[[Page 190]]
therefore does not fully comply with Part 574.5(g), as required by
S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 139. Specifically, the 4-symbol curing press ID
(C13R) was transposed with the 4-symbol numeric date code resulting in
a TIN that appears to contain 15 symbols--more symbols than allowed by
49 CFR 574.5(g) for tire manufactures previously assigned two-symbol
plant codes.
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 139, and
section 49 CFR 574.5(g) include the requirements relevant to this
petition. Tires manufactured after September 1, 2009 must be labeled
with the TIN required by 49 CFR 574 on the intended outboard sidewall
of a tire. 49 CFR 571.139 S5.5.1(b). For all tires other than retreads,
the opposite sidewall must also show either the full TIN or a partial
TIN that includes all characters except the date code and, optionally,
any manufacturer-chosen code. Id. Under section 49 CFR 574.5(g)(3),
manufacturers or retreaders may optionally include a third group of up
to four symbols in the TIN to describe significant tire
characteristics. If a tire is produced for a brand name owner, one of
the functions of this grouping must be to identify the brand name
owner. Id. Manufacturers or retreaders using this grouping must
maintain detailed records of any descriptive brand name owner code
used, which it must provide to NHTSA upon request. Id.
V. Summary of Goodyear's Petition: The following views and
arguments presented in this section, ``Summary of Goodyear's
Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by Goodyear. They do
not reflect the views of the NHTSA. Goodyear describes the subject
noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Goodyear first asserts that ``[t]he subject tires were manufactured
as designed and meet or exceed all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety performance standards and will have no impact on the safety of
vehicles on which they have been installed.''
Goodyear then states that ``[t]he date code portion of the TIN,
though transposed with the curing press ID slug, is still visible on
the sidewall of the tire following the DOT symbol. The date code
becomes important in the event of a field action by enabling the
consumer to identify the subject tires. In the unlikely event that a
field action is required for the subject tires, the consumer
notification letter could include the mismarked TIN information
including the photograph above that clearly displays the mismarked TIN
as it appears on the tire sidewall (including the date code). This
would enable a consumer to easily identify if their tires are involved
in the field action.''
Goodyear cites two previously granted inconsequentiality petitions
that it asserts should inform the Agency's decision on the subject
noncompliance:
<bullet> Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire, LLC, Grant of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 71 FR 4396
(January 26, 2006). Goodyear states this petition involved tires
missing a date code and was granted because the Agency determined that
a consumer notification could be accomplished by reference to the TIN.
<bullet> Cooper Tire & Rubber Company; Grant of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 63 FR 29059 (May 27, 1998).
Goodyear states this petition also involved tires missing the date code
and was granted because the Agency similarly determined that the tires'
TIN would allow the manufacturer to notify purchasers in the event of a
recall.
Goodyear concludes that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and 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.
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 the recall would otherwise
protect.\1\ In general, NHTSA does not consider the absence of
complaints or injuries as evidence that the issue is inconsequential to
safety. The absence of complaints does not mean consumers have not
experienced a safety issue, nor does it mean that there will not be
safety issues in the future.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor
vehicle equipment are affected do not justify granting of an
inconsequentiality petition.\3\ Similarly, mere assertions that only a
small percentage of vehicles or items of equipment are likely to
actually exhibit a noncompliance are unpersuasive. The percentage of
potential consumers that could be adversely affected by a noncompliance
is not relevant to whether the noncompliance poses an inconsequential
risk to safety. Rather, NHTSA focuses on the consequence to a consumer
who is exposed to the noncompliance.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23,
2001) (rejecting argument that noncompliance was inconsequential
because of the small number of vehicles affected); Aston Martin
Lagonda Ltd.; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) (noting that situations
involving individuals trapped in motor vehicles--while infrequent--
are consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663,
21664 (Apr. 12, 2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be
granted because the vehicle was produced in very low numbers and
likely to be operated on a limited basis).
\4\ See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for Determination
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14,
2004); Cosco Inc.; Denial of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 29409 (June 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain labeling or marking noncompliances can lead to unsafe
conditions or user behaviors. Regarding the noncompliance at issue
here, the Agency recognizes that the TIN marking is important for
several reasons, including serving as the primary identifier that both
manufacturers and consumers use to identify potentially defective tires
and remove them from service. Successful tire registration can be
critical to a successful tire safety recall campaign--allowing for
direct communication to the consumer--and TIN errors can impede the
ability of consumers to register their tires and avail themselves of
such communication.
That is the case here. The Agency attempted to register one of the
subject tires (that, due to the noncompliance, appears to have a 15-
digit TIN) on the Cooper Tire registration website, and was unable to
do so because the TIN exceeds 13 characters. At the time of NHTSA's
evaluation, Cooper Tire's registration system was apparently limited to
accepting only a 13-character alpha numeric string. The subject tires,
which appear to have a 15-character
[[Page 191]]
TIN, could not be successfully registered, and NHTSA would expect that
some consumers would give up if their first attempt to register their
tires proved unsuccessful. In short, the subject TIN marking error
causes an impediment to tire registration, which impairs the execution
of any necessary tire safety recall campaign.
Goodyear cites in support two previous decisions granting
inconsequentiality petitions (63 FR 29059 and 71 FR 4396) involving
tires from which the TIN's date code was missing entirely. In 63 FR
29059, the Agency observed that the tires at issue were capable of
being registered, and the manufacturer would be able to notify
purchasers of the tires if they were properly registered. See id.
(observing that ``in the case of a tire mislabeling noncompliance . . .
the true measure of its inconsequentiality to motor vehicle safety is,
if the tires were to be recalled for a performance-related
noncompliance . . . whether the mislabeling would affect the
manufacturer's ability to locate them.''). And in the grant notice for
71 FR 4396, the noncompliant tires contained an incorrect size
designation in the TIN. Despite the error, NHTSA found that ``the
incorrect marking does not affect the ability to identify the tires in
the event of a recall.'' 71 FR 4396. Thus, the Agency agreed with the
petitioner in observing that the noncompliance was inconsequential to
safety because ``a consumer notification of a recall of the tires could
be accomplished by referring to the TIN.'' Id.
In the subject tires, there is not a missing code, but rather
additional characters that elongate a TIN such that online registration
would be unsuccessful. Because tire registration facilitates
identification of tires subject to safety recalls and, therefore,
increases the effectiveness of safety recalls, and a purported means to
register the tires here would be unsuccessful and potentially
discourage future attempts, Goodyear has not established that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. Its petition is therefore
denied.
VII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that Goodyear has not met its burden of persuasion that the
subject FMVSS No. 139 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, Goodyear's petition is hereby denied and Goodyear
is consequently obligated to provide notification of and a free remedy
for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8.)
Eileen Sullivan,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2025-24206 Filed 12-31-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Document
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Formerly Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear), which acquired Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (Cooper Tire), has determined that certain Cooper Discoverer SRX replacement passenger car...
Legal Citation
Federal Register Citation
Use this for formal legal and research references to the published document.
91 FR 189
Web Citation
Suggested Web Citation
Use this when citing the archival web version of the document.
“Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Formerly Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance,” thefederalregister.org (January 2, 2026), https://thefederalregister.org/documents/2025-24206/goodyear-tire-and-rubber-company-formerly-cooper-tire-and-rubber-company-denial-of-petition-for-decision-of-inconsequent.