80 FR 64057 - Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 204 (October 22, 2015)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 204 (October 22, 2015)
| Page Range | 64057-64058 | |
| FR Document | 2015-26804 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 204 (Thursday, October 22, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 64057-64058] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-26804] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0091; Notice 1] Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Receipt of petition. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (Cooper), has determined that certain Cooper tires do not fully comply with paragraph S5.5.1(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic Tires Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Cooper has filed an appropriate report dated August 13, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is November 23, 2015. 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 at the beginning of this notice and submitted by any of the following methods:Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to: 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 Deliver: Deliver comments by hand to: 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 Federal Holidays. Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at http://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 comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78). The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will [[Page 64058]] be considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Cooper submitted a petition for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. This notice of receipt of Cooper's petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition. II. Tires Involved: Affected are approximately 1,350 Cooper Weather-Master S/T2 size 215/70R15 tires manufactured between April 26, 2015 and May 29, 2015. III. Noncompliance: Cooper explains that the noncompliance is that the inboard sidewalls of the subject tires are labeled with an incorrect manufacturer's identification mark and therefore do not fully meet all applicable requirements of paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 139. Specifically, the tires are labeled with manufacturer's identification mark ``U8'' instead of ``U9.'' IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 139 requires in pertinent part: S5.5.1 Tire Identification Number. * * * * * (b) Tires manufactured on or after September 1, 2009. Each tire must be labeled with the tire identification number required by 49 CFR part 574 on the intended outboard sidewall of the tire. Except for retreaded tires, either the tire identification number or a partial tire identification number, containing all characters in the tire identification number, 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. Except for retreaded tires, if a tire does not have an intended outboard sidewall, the tire must be labeled with the tire identification number required by 49 CFR part 574 on one sidewall and with either the tire identification number or a partial tire identification number, containing all characters in the tire identification number except for the date code and, at the discretion of the manufacturer, any optional code, on the other side wall. V. Summary of Cooper's Petition: Cooper states its belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because while the subject tires contain an incorrect manufacturer's identification mark on the inboard sidewall, the full and correct tire code (including the correct manufacturer's identification mark) is available on the intended outboard sidewall. In addition, Cooper stated that the tires are marked with the Cooper Weather-Master S/T2 brand name that is exclusively owned by Cooper Tire & Rubber Company. Cooper also indicated that it has taken the following steps to ensure proper registration of the subject tires: (a) Cooper has informed all internal personnel responsible for manual processing of tire registration cards about the ``U8'' issue so that cards containing the ``U8'' designation will be accepted and properly processed when all other information accurately identifies the subject tires. And, Cooper will follow up with the consumer seeking additional information by providing a prepaid response card. (b) Cooper is in the process of modifying its database to accept ``U8'' when other information (brand, serial weeks affected etc.) is accurate. (c) Cooper has contacted Computerized Information and Management Services, Inc. (CIMS) so that tire registration cards will not be rejected solely due to improper plant code information. Cooper additionally informed NHTSA that on May 29, 2015 the incorrect mold was pulled and the stamping error that caused the subject noncompliance was corrected at that time. Refer to Coopers' petition for their complete reasoning and any associated illustrations. The petition and all supporting documents are available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/ and following the online search instructions to locate the docket number listed in the title of this notice. In summation, Cooper believes that the described noncompliance of the subject tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to exempt Cooper from providing recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall 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 Cooper no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve equipment 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 Cooper 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) Jeffrey Giuseppe, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. 2015-26804 Filed 10-21-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Notices 64057
60 mph in 5 mph increments (i.e., 20, conform to the safety standard’s Tires for Light Vehicles. Cooper has
25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 mph). Link performance requirements. Therefore, filed an appropriate report dated August
conducted the tests, generally following the subject noncompliant vehicles do 13, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
NHTSA test protocols. not appear to pose an undue safety risk Defect and Noncompliance
The data results indicate that the test in braking performance in comparison Responsibility and Reports.
vehicle in the ‘‘noncompliant’’ to compliant vehicles. DATES: The closing date for comments
configuration met the safety standard’s The petitioner has met its burden of on the petition is November 23, 2015.
stopping distance requirements. persuasion that the noncompliance ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
Furthermore, the data results show that described herein is inconsequential to invited to submit written data, views,
there is no significant difference in safety. The petition is hereby granted. and arguments on this petition.
stopping distance performance between Accordingly, Mack is exempted from Comments must refer to the docket and
the two configurations. Additionally, the obligation of providing notification notice number cited at the beginning of
Link performed stability and control of, and remedy for the subject this notice and submitted by any of the
(i.e., Braking-in-a-Curve) tests with the noncompliance. following methods:
vehicle unloaded (unladen) representing NHTSA notes that the statutory • Mail: Send comments by mail
worst case. Link conducted these tests, provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and addressed to: U.S. Department of
generally following NHTSA test 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
protocols except that these tests were file petitions for a determination of
more severe than compliance tests 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
because they were conducted at test exempt manufacturers only from the
speeds approximately 10% higher at 30 Washington, DC 20590.
duties found in sections 30118 and • Hand Deliver: Deliver comments by
mph given a maximum drive speed of 30120, respectively, to notify owners,
36 mph.3 hand to: U.S. Department of
purchasers, and dealers of a defect or Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
Again, data results indicate that the noncompliance and to remedy the
test vehicle in the ‘‘noncompliant’’ 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
configuration met the safety standard’s decision only applies to the subject
stability and control braking Washington, DC 20590. The Docket
incomplete vehicles that Mack no longer Section is open on weekdays from 10
requirements and there is no significant controlled at the time it determined that
difference in braking performance a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays.
the noncompliance existed. However, • Electronically: Submit comments
between the two configurations. the grant of this petition does not relieve
Mack also stated that brake release electronically by: logging onto the
equipment distributors and dealers of Federal Docket Management System
timing has been the subject of previous
the prohibitions on the sale, offer for (FDMS) Web site at http://
petitions that it believes are similar to
sale, or introduction or delivery for www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
its petition and were granted by
introduction into interstate commerce of instructions for submitting comments.
NHTSA.
In previous petitions concerning the noncompliant incomplete vehicles Comments may also be faxed to (202)
brake release timing, NHTSA under their control after Mack notified 493–2251.
emphasized that only the failure of the them that the subject noncompliance Comments must be written in the
subject vehicles was at issue. NHTSA existed. English language, and be no greater than
concluded that, ‘‘the test data results Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 15 pages in length, although there is no
and analyses were sufficient to grant the delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and limit to the length of necessary
petition for the specific conditions that 501.8) attachments to the comments. If
cause the subject vehicles to be out of Jeffrey M. Giuseppe, comments are submitted in hard copy
compliance with the standard’s Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
form, please ensure that two copies are
pneumatic release time provided. If you wish to receive
[FR Doc. 2015–26803 Filed 10–21–15; 8:45 am]
requirement.’’[emphasis added] (see 77 confirmation that your comments were
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
FR 20482) received, please enclose a stamped, self-
Likewise, for this petition, we only addressed postcard with the comments.
consider the failure of the subject Note that all comments received will be
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
vehicles and whether the data and posted without change to http://
analyses are sufficient to grant the National Highway Traffic Safety www.regulations.gov, including any
petition. Administration personal information provided.
NHTSA’s Decision: NHTSA has Documents submitted to a docket may
concluded that the braking performance [Docket No. NHTSA–2015–0091; Notice 1] be viewed by anyone at the address and
of subject noncompliant vehicles is not times given above. The documents may
adversely affected as a result of slightly Cooper Tire & Rubber Company,
also be viewed on the Internet at
longer pneumatic brake actuation and Receipt of Petition for Decision of
http://www.regulations.gov by following
release times. The dynamic performance Inconsequential Noncompliance
the online instructions for accessing the
data provided by the petitioner indicate AGENCY: National Highway Traffic dockets. DOT’s complete Privacy Act
no difference in stopping distance Safety Administration (NHTSA), Statement is available for review in the
performance for noncompliant vehicles Department of Transportation (DOT). Federal Register published on April 11,
when compared to compliant vehicles. ACTION: Receipt of petition. 2000, (65 FR 19477–78).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The data confirm that stopping The petition, supporting materials,
distances of noncompliant vehicles SUMMARY: Cooper Tire & Rubber and all comments received before the
Company (Cooper), has determined that close of business on the closing date
3 In the test report, Link indicated that the test
certain Cooper tires do not fully comply indicated above will be filed and will be
vehicle achieved a maximum drive through speed
of 36 mph. Per FMVSS No. 121, S5.3.6.1, the test
with paragraph S5.5.1(b) of Federal considered. All comments and
speed is calculated as 75% of the maximum drive Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) supporting materials received after the
through speed which computes to 27 mph. No. 139, New Pneumatic Tires Radial closing date will also be filed and will
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:05 Oct 21, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM 22OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_64261/page/1.svg)
![64058 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Notices
be considered to the extent possible. correct tire code (including the correct the subject tires that Cooper no longer
When the petition is granted or denied, manufacturer’s identification mark) is controlled at the time it determined that
notice of the decision will be published available on the intended outboard the noncompliance existed. However,
in the Federal Register pursuant to the sidewall. In addition, Cooper stated that any decision on this petition does not
authority indicated below. the tires are marked with the Cooper relieve equipment distributors and
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Weather-Master S/T2 brand name that is dealers of the prohibitions on the sale,
Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. exclusively owned by Cooper Tire & offer for sale, or introduction or delivery
30118(d) and 30120(h) (see Rubber Company. for introduction into interstate
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Cooper also indicated that it has taken commerce of the noncompliant tires
Cooper submitted a petition for an the following steps to ensure proper under their control after Cooper notified
exemption from the notification and registration of the subject tires: them that the subject noncompliance
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. (a) Cooper has informed all internal existed.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this personnel responsible for manual
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
noncompliance is inconsequential to processing of tire registration cards delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
motor vehicle safety. about the ‘‘U8’’ issue so that cards 501.8)
This notice of receipt of Cooper’s containing the ‘‘U8’’ designation will be
accepted and properly processed when Jeffrey Giuseppe,
petition is published under 49 U.S.C.
all other information accurately Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
30118 and 30120 and does not represent
any agency decision or other exercise of identifies the subject tires. And, Cooper [FR Doc. 2015–26804 Filed 10–21–15; 8:45 am]
judgment concerning the merits of the will follow up with the consumer BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
petition. seeking additional information by
II. Tires Involved: Affected are providing a prepaid response card.
approximately 1,350 Cooper Weather- (b) Cooper is in the process of DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Master S/T2 size 215/70R15 tires modifying its database to accept ‘‘U8’’
when other information (brand, serial National Highway Traffic Safety
manufactured between April 26, 2015 Administration
and May 29, 2015. weeks affected etc.) is accurate.
III. Noncompliance: Cooper explains (c) Cooper has contacted [Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0144; Notice 2]
that the noncompliance is that the Computerized Information and
inboard sidewalls of the subject tires are Management Services, Inc. (CIMS) so Ford Motor Company, Grant of Petition
labeled with an incorrect manufacturer’s that tire registration cards will not be for Decision of Inconsequential
identification mark and therefore do not rejected solely due to improper plant Noncompliance
fully meet all applicable requirements of code information.
Cooper additionally informed NHTSA AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 139. Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Specifically, the tires are labeled with that on May 29, 2015 the incorrect mold
was pulled and the stamping error that Department of Transportation (DOT).
manufacturer’s identification mark ACTION: Grant of petition.
‘‘U8’’ instead of ‘‘U9.’’ caused the subject noncompliance was
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.5.1 of corrected at that time. SUMMARY: Ford Motor Company, (Ford)
FMVSS No. 139 requires in pertinent Refer to Coopers’ petition for their
has determined that certain model year
part: complete reasoning and any associated
(MY) 2014 Ford Focus passenger cars do
illustrations. The petition and all
S5.5.1 Tire Identification Number. not fully comply with paragraph
supporting documents are available by
* * * * * S3.1.4.1(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle
logging onto the Federal Docket
(b) Tires manufactured on or after Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102,
Management System (FDMS) Web site
September 1, 2009. Each tire must be labeled Transmission Shift Position Sequence,
at: http://www.regulations.gov/ and
with the tire identification number required Starter Interlock, and Transmission
following the online search instructions
by 49 CFR part 574 on the intended outboard Braking Effect. Ford has filed an
sidewall of the tire. Except for retreaded tires, to locate the docket number listed in the
appropriate report dated November 25,
either the tire identification number or a title of this notice.
In summation, Cooper believes that 2013 pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
partial tire identification number, containing Defect and Noncompliance
all characters in the tire identification the described noncompliance of the
number, except for the date code and, at the subject tires is inconsequential to motor Responsibility and Reports.
discretion of the manufacturer, any optional vehicle safety, and that its petition, to ADDRESSES: For further information on
code, must be labeled on the other sidewall exempt Cooper from providing recall this decision contact Amina Fisher,
of the tire. Except for retreaded tires, if a tire notification of noncompliance as Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,
does not have an intended outboard sidewall, National Highway Traffic Safety
required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
the tire must be labeled with the tire Administration (NHTSA), telephone
identification number required by 49 CFR remedying the recall noncompliance as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be (202) 366–5307, facsimile (202) 366–
part 574 on one sidewall and with either the
tire identification number or a partial tire granted. 5930.
identification number, containing all NHTSA notes that the statutory SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Ford’s
characters in the tire identification number provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d)
except for the date code and, at the discretion 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to and 30120(h) (see implementing rule at
of the manufacturer, any optional code, on file petitions for a determination of 49 CFR part 556), Ford submitted a
the other side wall. inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to petition for an exemption from the
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
V. Summary of Cooper’s Petition: exempt manufacturers only from the notification and remedy requirements of
Cooper states its belief that the subject duties found in sections 30118 and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that
noncompliance is inconsequential to 30120, respectively, to notify owners, this noncompliance is inconsequential
motor vehicle safety because while the purchasers, and dealers of a defect or to motor vehicle safety.
subject tires contain an incorrect noncompliance and to remedy the Notice of receipt of Ford’s petition
manufacturer’s identification mark on defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any was published, with a 30-Day public
the inboard sidewall, the full and decision on this petition only applies to comment period, on June 19, 2014 in
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:05 Oct 21, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM 22OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_64261/page/2.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-14 15:34:11
Document Modified: 2015-12-14 15:34:11
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Receipt of petition. | |
| Dates | The closing date for comments on the petition is November 23, 2015. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 64057 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR