Notice2025-21525
Vee Rubber Corporation Ltd. and American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Grant of Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
November 28, 2025
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
Vee Rubber Corporation Ltd. (VRC) and American Honda Motor Co., Inc., (Honda) have determined that certain Vee Rubber VRM133 motorcycle tires sold as replacement equipment and as original equipment for installation on certain model year (MY) 2019-2021 Honda Monkey motorcycles 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), Specialty Tires, and Tires for Motorcycles. VRC filed a noncompliance report dated June 7, 2021, and Honda filed a noncompliance report dated June 22, 2021. Subsequently, VRC petitioned NHTSA on June 22, 2021, and Honda petitioned NHTSA on July 14, 2021, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces the grant of VRC and Honda's petitions.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 227 (Friday, November 28, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 227 (Friday, November 28, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54862-54864]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-21525]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket Nos. NHTSA-2021-0056, NHTSA-2021-0057; Notice 2]
Vee Rubber Corporation Ltd. and American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
Grant of Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Vee Rubber Corporation Ltd. (VRC) and American Honda Motor
Co., Inc., (Honda) have determined that certain Vee Rubber VRM133
motorcycle tires sold as replacement equipment and as original
equipment for installation on certain model year (MY) 2019-2021 Honda
Monkey motorcycles 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), Specialty
Tires, and Tires for Motorcycles. VRC filed a noncompliance report
dated June 7, 2021, and Honda filed a noncompliance report dated June
22, 2021. Subsequently, VRC petitioned NHTSA on June 22, 2021, and
Honda petitioned NHTSA on July 14, 2021, for a decision that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety. This notice announces the grant of VRC and Honda's petitions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayton Lindley, General Engineer,
NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (325) 655-0547.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: VRC and Honda have determined that certain Vee Rubber
VRM133 motorcycle tires sold as replacement equipment and as original
equipment for installation on certain 2019-2021 Honda Monkey
motorcycles do not fully comply with the requirements of paragraph
S6.5(b) of FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles with a
GVWR of More Than 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds), Specialty Tires, and
Tires for Motorcycles (49 CFR 571.119).
VRC filed a noncompliance report dated June 7, 2021, pursuant to 49
CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. VRC
subsequently petitioned NHTSA on June 22, 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.
Honda filed a noncompliance report dated June 22, 2021, pursuant to
49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
Honda subsequently petitioned NHTSA on July 14, 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 VRC and Honda's petitions was published with a
30-day public comment period in the Federal Register (87 FR 79440,
December 27, 2022). 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-2021-0056.''
II. Tires Involved: Approximately 29,018 Vee Rubber VRM133
motorcycle tires sizes 120/80-12 and 130/80-12, sold as original
equipment to Honda for installation in certain Honda motorcycles, and
manufactured between March 5, 2018, and May 27, 2021, are potentially
involved.
The subject tires were installed as original equipment on
approximately 13,328 MY 2019-2021 Honda Monkey motorcycles manufactured
between July 4, 2018, and April 2, 2021, and therefore these vehicles
are also potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance: VRC and Honda explain that the noncompliance is
that the subject tires contain extra markings between the
manufacturer's code and production week mark within the tire
identification number (TIN), and, therefore, do not comply with the
requirements specified in paragraph S6.5(b) of FMVSS No. 119.
Specifically, the tires included an extra grouping of characters,
beginning with the letter ``V'' followed by numbers between the second
and third grouping of characters. For example, the tires were marked
``DOT 15A BCN133 Vxxxxxx xxxx'' or ``DOT 15A BBN133 Vxxxxxx xxxx'' when
they should have been marked ``DOT 15A BCN133 xxxx'' or ``DOT 15A
BBN133 xxxx,'' with ``x'' representing the number present on a specific
tire.
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S6.5(b) of FMVSS No. 119 includes
the requirements relevant to these petitions. S6.5(b) provides that the
TIN must meet
[[Page 54863]]
the requirements as stated in 49 CFR 574 and may be marked on only one
sidewall. 49 CFR 574.5(a) requires, in relevant part, that each new
tire manufacturer must conspicuously label on one sidewall of each tire
it manufactures, by permanently molding into or onto the sidewall, a
TIN consisting of 13 symbols that contains the plant code,
manufacturer's code, and date code, as described in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (b)(3) of 49 CFR 574.5.
V. Summary of VRC and Honda's Petitions: The following views and
arguments presented in this section, ``V. Summary of VRC and Honda's
Petitions,'' are the views and arguments provided by VRC and Honda.
They do not reflect the views of the Agency. VRC and Honda describe the
subject noncompliance and contend that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of their petitions, VRC and Honda submitted the
following reasoning:
VRC claims that the subject tires meet the performance requirements
of FMVSS No. 119 and, therefore, the ``markings have no impact on the
operational performance of the tires or on the safety of motorcycles on
which these tires are installed.'' VRC also claims that the subject
tires contain ``a complete and identifiable TIN which is accessible
while mounted'' and that in the event of a recall, a consumer would
have access to all the necessary information required to determine
whether their tires are subject to a recall.
In Honda's petition, they state that they support VRC's petition
and believe that the extra markings on the tires do not pose a safety
risk to riders or affect the performance of the subject motorcycle
tires. Honda added that the subject tires are both identifiable and
traceable since the extra markings ``do not alter or remove any
required identifying characters of the TIN.''
The petitioners referred to the following inconsequential
noncompliance petitions granted by NHTSA that they believe support the
granting of their petitions for the subject noncompliance:
<bullet> Michelin North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 85 FR 37495, June 22, 2020.
<bullet> Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire, LLC, Grant of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 71 FR 4396,
January 26, 2006.
<bullet> Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 71 FR 4396, January 26,
2006.
<bullet> Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 82 FR 17075, April 7, 2017.
<bullet> Nitto Tire USA., Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 81 FR 17764, March 30, 2016.
<bullet> Hankook Tire America, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 79 FR 30688, May 28, 2014.
The petitioners state that they are not aware of any customer
claims, complaints, injuries, incidents, or field reports associated
with the extra markings in the TIN on the affected tires.
VRC states that they have already corrected the error at its plant
so that the TIN on all new Model VRM133 tires in the affected sizes
will be marked according to S6.5(b) of FMVSS No. 119. VRC also states
that they have recovered all affected tires in possession of United
States distributors or retailers that have not yet reached end-users.
The petitioners conclude their petitions by contending that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety and that their petitions 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 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 inconsequential noncompliance
petition submitted by VRC and Honda and agrees to grant the
petitioner's request for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 49 U.S.C. 30120 on the basis that
this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety. The Agency considered the following prior to making this
determination:
NHTSA has no basis to believe that the tires do not otherwise meet
the performance and labeling requirements of FMVSS No. 119 based on
information provided by the manufacturer.
In addition, NHTSA agrees that the additional characters in the TIN
do not affect the ability of the manufacturer to identify the affected
tires in the event of a recall in this specific case. The agency has
confirmed with the manufacturer that all the subject tires were sent
directly to Honda as original equipment on new motorcycles. Honda
replaced and scrapped all the noncompliant tires that were within their
inventory. For the vehicles that were sold with noncompliant tires, a
consumer would register the vehicle and be notified by Honda in the
event of a future recall. The petitioners argue that the TIN is
identifiable and the extra markings do not alter the required TIN
content. The agency is not persuaded by this argument because we
disagree with this characterization since the additional characters are
inserted into the middle of the TIN. However, because these tires are
only sold as original equipment, any future safety recall would be
completed by notifying consumers based on the VIN of the vehicle rather
than the TIN markings of the tires.
VRC cited numerous petitions that have been granted in the past for
various labeling noncompliances. Of those cited, the agency believes
that only one is related to the subject noncompliance. The Michelin
North America petition cited (85 FR 37495) involves the symbol ``DOT''
being mistakenly placed within the TIN thus creating a TIN with
[[Page 54864]]
additional characters. The agency granted this petition based on the
fact that the symbol ``DOT'' is correctly marked on one sidewall of the
tire and that the manufacturer communicated that the tires will still
be able to be registered. Therefore, while it may be relevant in some
aspects, the number and nature of the incorrect symbols inserted into
the TIN are sufficiently different when compared to the subject
petition and NHTSA does not find the rationale in the Michelin grant
persuasive in this instance.
Unlike the subject petition, in cases where the tires are not sold
as original equipment on vehicles, TIN errors like this noncompliance
potentially impact the consumer's ability to successfully register
their tires. Despite NHTSA's decision to grant this petition, the
agency remains concerned that TIN errors such as the one found here
frustrate the tire registration process when not sold as original
equipment on vehicles, and have the potential to negatively impact
recall effectiveness in general. Because these TIN errors also violate
49 CFR part 574, it is possible for NHTSA to seek civil penalties for
violations of these requirements, and NHTSA may consider doing so if
violations potentially affect the ability to recall tires.
VII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA
finds that VRC and Honda have met their burden of persuasion that the
subject FMVSS No. 119 noncompliance in the affected tires is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, VRC and Honda's
petitions are hereby granted and VRC and Honda are 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 and vehicles that the petitioners no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, the grant of these petitions does not relieve tire
and vehicle 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 and vehicles under their
control after VRC and Honda 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. 2025-21525 Filed 11-26-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on November 28, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.