Welcome to the fourth quarter and full year 2009 earnings results conference call. (Operator Instructions) Mr. Patrick Stobb, you may begin.

Good morning everyone and welcome to Goodyear’s fourth quarter conference call. With me today are Bob Keegan, Chairman and CEO, Rich Kramer, Chief Operating Officer, Darren Wells, Executive Vice President and CFO and Damon Audia – Senior Vice President of Finance and Treasurer. Before we get started there are a few items I would like to cover. To begin, the webcast of this discussion and supporting slides presentation can be found on our website at investor.goodyear.com. A replay of this call will accessible later today. Replay instructions were included in our earnings release issued earlier this morning. The last item, we plan to file our 10-K later today. If I could now direct your attention to the Safe Harbor statement on Slide 2 of the presentation, our discussion this morning may contain forward-looking statements based on our current expectations and assumptions that are subject to risks and uncertainties that can cause our actual results to differ materially. These risks and uncertainties are outlined in Goodyear’s filings with the SEC and in the news release we issued this morning. The company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. That finishes my comments. I will now turn the call over to Bob.

Thank you Pat and good morning everyone and thank you for joining us on the call this morning. On today’s call, I’ll comment on the solid progress we made in the fourth quarter and during 2009 overall, and the success we had strengthening our business despite a challenging economy and operating environment. I’ll also provide you with an updated perspective on our continuing confidence in the market opportunities available to us in 2010 and beyond. Darren will then provide detail on the financials and our outlook. We’ll close by taking your questions. We’ve got a lot of material to cover this morning on the quarter and the full year, so I’ll get started. As I reflect back on our February call one year ago, we came to you with an aggressive action plan and we achieved that plan. How did we do it? First, through the courageous and well judged decisions made by my leadership team which I consider the best in our industry, and we continue to improve the team with the addition of Kurt Anderson as President of the North American Tire business and Kurt comes to us with strong experience at GE, Timken, McKenzie and Cooper Industries. Kurt is an outstanding addition to the team and we welcome his contributions, and importantly, this move also allows Rich Kramer to full transition to his Chief Operating Officer corporate role. Second, through our commitment to a proven strategy, third through winning in the marketplace; share of market is a gift up in our targeted market segments. Fourth, through an all out attack on our cost structure, we exceeded our 2009 cost goals. And fifth, through changing the way we run our supply chain we generated outstanding reductions in inventory levels as you’ve seen in our reports this morning. In…

Thanks Bob. I’ll start this morning with a few opening comments before moving on to address our operating results, the balance sheet and our outlook, including comments on the first quarter and the full year. Looking back on 2009, we see evidence of significant accomplishments in each of our businesses. While part of these accomplishments were actions taken to address the economic crisis, actions like reduced staffing, footprint changes, overhead reductions and production cuts, most of what was accomplished will benefit the business as the markets recover. During 2009 we continued to drive improvements in our top line where the market presented opportunities, particularly in our consumer business. New products and strong marketing efforts drove our share up in key consumer replacement markets even as the U.S. OE market collapsed. Outside the U.S., we leveraged our technology capability to increase our OE business where government incentives kept those volumes relatively strong; markets like Western Europe, Brazil and China. As Bob said, in the commercial truck and off the road markets, the opportunities were limited given the dramatic declines in these markets and sparse evidence of recovery. The weakness in these high value commercial and OTR tires and strength in overseas in OE markets relative to replacement, both resulted in adverse business mix that affected our revenue and earnings. The good news is that as the economy recovers, we expect our business mix to rebound allowing us to increase sales in our commercial business and increase the utilization of commercial truck and OTR factories. We expect the recovery to begin in2010 but return to pre recession levels is likely to be a multi-year process. Also as the economy recovers, we will no longer see the double hit to our productions we saw for much of 2009 both from lower sales and…

(Operator Instructions) Your first question comes from Rod Lache – Deutsche Bank. Rod Lache – Deutsche Bank: On a year over year basis you had a $3 million unit increase in volume and you’re showing on Slide 19 a $45 million increase in earnings from volume which looks like about $14.00 a tire just based on simple math, and you’ve talked about $15.00 a tire from overhead absorption. Shouldn’t the volume benefit be somewhat greater than that?

I think as you look at the volume variance and as you look at it in prior quarters, you see that the benefit we get from sales volume will vary and it will vary based on the mix of products, OE versus replacement. It will vary consumer versus commercial. So it’s something that can go up or down over time but if we look at the fact, particularly overseas, we had a lot of strength in OE markets. That is and adverse mix, and we had consumer certainly recovering better than commercial. So I think you’ve got to take those factors into account in evaluating that volume. Rod Lache – Deutsche Bank: So you’re not putting those kinds of factors, consumers versus commercial, you’re not putting that into that mix column. You’re putting that somewhat in the volume column.

If you were calculating on a unit basis, you’re going to see the volume but it will be some dependency on mix as well. So the answer is there’s some impact both places. Rod Lache – Deutsche Bank: I was hoping you could go through a little bit more on the pluses and minuses on your cost structure in 2010 versus 2009 just on the inflation side first. If you assume 3% inflation on your non raw material costs and on your SG&A X pension, it looks like you’d probably be anticipating a $300 million headwind from inflation. Is that roughly correct?

What we’ve seen is we look at the last four years, we’ve seen inflation about 3.5% on average. We had some years that you recall were very high and we had a year that it was closer to 6%. We had some years that were lower than that including last year. But I think if you take our non raw material costs, it’s going to be in the neighborhood of $10 billion so that’s the part you’d be applying the inflation rate to. So it really comes down to what it’s going to be this year. Rod Lache – Deutsche Bank: So your four point cost savings plan, the $1 billion over three years would offset basically inflation. It wouldn’t be in excess of the inflation.

I think we’re looking at that to certainly offset inflation. Depending on where inflation, it could offset inflation. It could do a little bit better than offset inflation. Rod Lache – Deutsche Bank: That includes your savings from the steelworker’s contract and the head count reductions and all those things, right?

It does. Rod Lache – Deutsche Bank: But does it include the pension cost reduction that you highlighted, that $90 million?

No. I think the pension cost reduction, we saw pension expense go up close to $160 million last year. That pension expense is going to come down over time. We view that as a separate factor. Rod Lache – Deutsche Bank: I was hoping there’s always a lot of confusion around this under absorbed overhead issue and I appreciate the additional disclosure, but just to make sure we understand this right, you took inventory down by nine million units in 2009 so you under produced in ’09 by that amount and you’re saying we should be thinking about a $12.00 to $14.00 per tire recovery. So that under absorbed overhead from a GAAP perspective if you look at 2010 versus 2009, would it be like a $100 million benefit, something like that?

I think there are two factors to think about for the unabsorbed overhead. There is the $9 million additional units we’ll produce because we’re not reducing inventory, and then there is going to be whatever additional units we produce based on sales increasing in 2010 versus 2009. And you get the $12.00 to $14.00 on the nine million and on whatever number you put on the unit sales increase year over year. Rod Lache – Deutsche Bank: But you seem to suggest that some of that cost was kind of deferred into the first quarter so would it still be on a year over year basis, just that part related to the non recurrence of the inventory correction. Would that still be $100 million positive year over year at least?

I think when we refer to that deferral of some of the costs we had expected to see in Q4 that are now carried in inventory into Q1, what that caused us to do is, effectively what it did was raise costs in Q1 and it caused the average recovery per unit to drop from about $15.00 to that $12.00 to $14.00 range. So we’ve reflected that in the dollars per unit.

Your next question comes from Himanshu Patel – J.P. Morgan. Himanshu Patel – J.P. Morgan: Can I ask a question on Venezuela? The $50 million to $75 million estimated hit in ’10, two questions on that. First is that simply the FX translation hit or does that estimated impact also incorporate what I think should be some adverse transaction exposure there as well just presuming you’re buying dollar based raw materials. And two; should that impact expect to be permanent or should we expect that to recede in 2011 or in future years?

The $50 million to $75 million takes into account a number of factors. It certainly takes into account the currency factors that you’re raising. It also takes into account the expected reduction in volume from the fact that that market given the fact that there is a lot of change taking place, that market is unsettled. Demand is down. So we’re building in there an expected drop in volume as well, and you see that $50 million to $75 million. So we think about what’s going to happen going forward. It’s going to be a combination of how the volumes recover there and what happens with the currency versus what we’re able to do in our business to offset those effects. Himanshu Patel – J.P. Morgan: Is the biggest operational offset price increases in the domestic market?

I think there are a number of things that we’ll focus on as we look at improving things in the Venezuela market. There is certainly additional volume opportunities. We’ve got strong business there, a lot of low production costs. So we’ll look to recover in volume and we’re going to look to continue to have a great product line there that allows us to deliver a better value proposition than our competitors there and that value proposition is obviously something that we focus on in driving our margins there. Himanshu Patel – J.P. Morgan: I wanted to get some clarification on the Slide 37. Thank you for all the detail on unabsorbed fixed costs. If the first line where you say production cuts for full year ’09 were $51.6 million, is that incremental production cuts versus ’08 or versus the ’07 base?

You can think of it as versus the ’07 base or versus essentially our full capacity. Himanshu Patel – J.P. Morgan: So the actual incremental production cut is really the difference between the $51.6 million and the $31 million. In the year it’s like a $20 million incremental production cuts happened in ’09 and I think you said $9 million of that was attributable to inventory destocking, so basically half of your production cut in ’09 was due to inventory destocking. Is that a fair assumption?

I agree with everything you just said. Himanshu Patel – J.P. Morgan: Going back to your comments on raw materials, I think you mentioned that in the second half the 30% raw materials inflation could be, it’s at a velocity that may not allow you to fully offset it with price mix. How do you think about that relationship in the first half? I’m trying to understand the full year picture. In the first half would it be fair to say you could actually more than offset that so perhaps on a full year basis price mix versus raws is sort of a wash?

First half and second half, you’re right to think about very different. In the first half we’re going to see still a big step down so a big benefit from lower raw material in the first quarter. The second quarter starts to rise and then third and fourth quarter is the big spike. If you look at the first half that is going to more closely resemble periods of time when we’ve been successful at getting gains in price mix versus raws, so certainly we’re focused on managing that. We’re managing our price mix versus raws together. We get to the second half, you’re going to get into a period that’s more similar to Q4 ’08 and Q1 ’09 where we were seeing a big spike close to 30% increases. I’ll say in those historical quarters, we weren’t able to fully offset raw materials in the quarters. Now we kept driving and we keep moving forward and so it’s a matter of time and we’re comfortable that we can manage it going forward, but there’s really a timing question there given the steep increase in the second half. Himanshu Patel – J.P. Morgan: When you look on Slide 32, you’ve got the nice five year history of how raw materials increases. Can you talk a little bit about industry structure currently given what’s happened with the Chinese tire tariffs, given what’s happened with some incremental capacity reductions. Is there a reason to think that assuming your individual business mix between consumer and commercial OE replacement was constant, is there a reason to think that this relationship between price mix outpacing raw materials over the medium term, should we expect that to continue or maybe even be improved going forward?

I would say given our goals and the plans we’re putting in place, our goal is going to be to try to improve that relationship over time. I think with obviously tough cost actions which you’re all aware of with the new product launches that we’ve had and those that will come and the cumulative impact of those, we’re using innovation in both the cost area, the pricing area and frankly the supply chain area to drive a situation where we can do better than that. On the other hand, we’ve done very well under those circumstance. We don’t see anything structurally in terms of the competitive environment that’s going to change that situation dramatically. I think you were alluding to the fact that it might be a negative factor. I don’t particularly see it that way. And again, it’s up to us and our team to add competitive advantage in those other areas to be able to drive a little better situation that we’ve seen historically. But I don’t mean to diminish what we’ve done. I think what we’ve done over the past five years has been probably unexpected by most people who are observers of the industry five years ago. So we’re getting better at each one of those areas that drove that performance. Himanshu Patel – J.P. Morgan: On that same slide, for 2009 if you control for business mix being constant, would price mix versus raw materials within each one of the four sub segments have been, what would that relationship have looked like if you look at consumer replacement individually, commercial replacement, etc.

Mix was a negative effect for us. So I think almost any metric we look at, if we control for mix, we wouldn’t have that adverse affect and our performance would be better. So if we look at individual business, we saw the consumer business where we were able to drive improvements in revenue per tire, get better price mix in that business. But when we combine it and combine it with the weakness in commercial and OTR that doesn’t come through very strong.

I think another way to look at is, if you think just product mix, and you leave out the business mix crossing over between pulley and replacement and crossing over between commercial and consumer, if you look at just product mix within those categories you’d see gains in mix.

Your next question comes from Patrick Archambault – Goldman Sachs. Patrick Archambault – Goldman Sachs: Could we dive a little bit more into just on the North America slide where you have outlined the three non recurring benefits? Can you quantify those items for us? Could you give us a sense of how big they were of a benefit there were for you in the quarter?

What we referred to and I’m just going to stick to the corporate level, but North America is going to be a significant part of my comments. What we said was we had a couple of driving factors there. We had some volume that was pulled ahead into the fourth quarter from the first quarter and part of that was a reaction to our price increase and the fact customers put orders in before the price increase came into effect. So we had some pull ahead of volume there. We also had some of our factories that did not have enough production cut for the unabsorbed overhead to be written off to the income statement in Q4 so instead it’s now in inventory and will come out in Q1. I think if you aggregate those effects together for the company, you’d be in the $25 million to $30 million range and you can assume there’s a meaningful part of that within North America. Patrick Archambault – Goldman Sachs: Would you be able to help us in terms of how we think about the walk from Q4 to Q1? Volume is obviously up to us, but let’s assume you had a little bit of a sequential increase there, raw materials feel like they could be fairly similar just given your guidance for the first quarter. Then I guess you’d have this negative $25 million to $30 million of non recurring items. Is there anything that I’m missing here? It seems like you might be flattish to slightly down if you add this stuff up. I just wanted to get your take.

You’ve got multiple factors there. I think you’re right to think about the pull ahead factor as affecting Q1. I think for raw materials, sequentially if we go Q4 to Q1, raw materials are trending upward. So raw material costs, if we look at them in that way, they’re going to continue to go up as they did from Q3 to Q4.

Natural rubber will be the driving force. Patrick Archambault – Goldman Sachs: You’ve already worked through all the cheapest stuff in your inventory then.

Yes. It certainly is trending upward. Natural rubber has been going up for awhile and has continued to go up over the last 90 days so that’s a trend that started in Q4. It’s going to continue in Q1 if you look at it sequentially. Patrick Archambault – Goldman Sachs: It sounds like in that case you might actually be down sequentially because you’ve got these non recurring items. You’ve got the raw, you might have a little bit of an offset from volume but it sounds like order of magnitude that probably wouldn’t be sufficient.

For those factors I think that’s fair. There are a number of other factors that we haven’t talked through. Just so I make sure I’m answering the right question, you’re still focused on North America only or globally? Patrick Archambault – Goldman Sachs: Globally.

I think that the story could be a little bit different internationally. We continue to see some volume growth. We continue to get benefits from new products. So there is some positives there. I think in terms of pension expense, you heard first quarter continues to be a high pension expense. We won’t get benefits until Q2 so I think you’re right now to think of that as an improvement in Q1. But I think overall there, there is a number of factors. Volume is going to be a big dependency and the unabsorbed overhead is a lot in inventory there. I think you have something that we provided the data so that you know how to think about first quarter versus fourth. So I would encourage you to spend some time with that slide, that appendix slide as you think about what’s going to happen in Q1 versus Q4.

Your next question comes from John Murphy – Bank of America/Merrill Lynch. John Murphy – Bank of America/Merrill Lynch: After the third quarter you seemed to indicate there was a weakness in the commercial vehicle market and there may have been some over build in excess inventory in the channel. I was wondering where you see that standing right now and if that has been worked through the system and your inventory and in the distribution channel.

I assume you’re largely talking about North America. The inventory build in the commercial business really started in earnest at the end of 2008, really fourth quarter 2008 and I would tell you our inventory, certainly can’t speak for industry, but our inventory has been taken down substantially. We see that in some of the cash flow numbers that Darren somewhat alluded to. So as we look at it right now our inventory is down substantially, actually to even where it was during the strike levels. We’re able to fill at very high rates right now and in terms of the industry, picking up substantially in the near term, we really don’t see it but we feel like we’re well positioned to address the demands that we see and well positioned to pick up when the industry comes back. John Murphy – Bank of America/Merrill Lynch: So the concern you’re expressing at the end of the third quarter on the third quarter call was more focused on the industry environment going forward as opposed to the inventory levels.

Exactly. John Murphy – Bank of America/Merrill Lynch: Is Venezuela about a third of the Latin American business and also as we think about Venezuela being maybe a third, how much exposure do you have on accounts receivable in Venezuela in addition to your cash exposure or is that included in what you’re talking about?

We don’t dimension financials by country so that’s going to be a tough one. The only thing we do for Latin America is we say that Brazil is about half the Latin American business and so all of the other countries in aggregate are the other half and Venezuela is certainly a significant business within that other half. But that’s the best way we have to dimension that. But your question on whether we’re taking into account all parts of the balance sheet, when we talk about the one time write down of $150 million that we would take based on the currency devaluation, if we use the 4.3 to 1 currency rate, that takes into account our cash position, our payables, our receivables, so really all the monetary parts of the balance sheet. John Murphy – Bank of America/Merrill Lynch: On Titan and the potential of the farm tire business to them in Europe, is that similar to what we saw in North America in 2005, the sale there? Is it that small? Would that be a big needle mover in Europe as far as revenue or profits or mix?

The farm tire business for us, in Latin America and Europe it is a relatively small percentage of the business in both business units. It’s been a good business for us. It’s not core, not someplace that we’re going to put lot of investment and that’s the reason that we moved in ’05 to sell the North American farm tire business. Without diminishing it specifically it’s not a major strategic driver of either of those businesses. There will be some impact when we get to the conclusion of that sale process, we’ll provide some more information on that. John Murphy – Bank of America/Merrill Lynch: On the supply chain simplification as you look at the reduction in inventory that you’ve made so far, how much of that has to do with taking out layers in the supply chain or distribution channels and is there the opportunity as you simplify the supply chain to potentially take out a significant amount more of inventory?

I think in the aggregate it’s all of the above. We took substantial physical assets out as we worked on the supply chain. That certainly helped. Our inventory levels right now are probably near record low levels with our fill rates being at nearly very high levels as we talked about 2009. As we go forward, our view, and I think Darren made mention of this earlier we’ll see some inventory growth as the business grows again, but we feel through a combination of efficiency in the factories, efficiency in terms of the whole supply chain from forecasting all the way back to buying raw materials, that we can grow the business without substantially growing our inventory from where it is now on a unit basis. Obviously the dollars will be impacted by raw material costs and the like. So I would tell you right now if anything, we see upside in terms of opportunities in the supply chain.