Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 53712-53713 [05-17906]

Download as PDF 53712 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Notices sidewalls * * * (e) Actual number of plies in the sidewall, and the actual number of plies in the tread area if different.’’ The noncompliant tires were marked ‘‘tread 1 ply nylon + 2 ply steel + 1 ply polyester; sidewall 2 ply polyester.’’ The correct marking should read ‘‘tread 1 ply nylon, 2 ply steel + 2 ply polyester; sidewall 2 ply polyester.’’ Cooper believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Cooper states that ‘‘the incorrect number of tread plies on each tire does not present a safety-related defect. The subject tires, in fact, have 2 polyester tread plies.’’ Cooper states that the tires comply with all other requirements of FMVSS No. 109. The Transportation Recall, Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act (Pub. L. 106–414) required, among other things, that the agency initiate rulemaking to improve tire label information. In response, the agency published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register on December 1, 2000 (65 FR 75222). The agency received more than 20 comments on the tire labeling information required by 49 CFR Sections 571.109 and 119, Part 567, Part 574, and Part 575. In addition, the agency conducted a series of focus groups, as required by the TREAD Act, to examine consumer perceptions and understanding of tire labeling. Few of the focus group participants had knowledge of tire labeling beyond the tire brand name, tire size, and tire pressure. Based on the information obtained from comments to the ANPRM and the consumer focus groups, we have concluded that it is likely that few consumers have been influenced by the tire construction information (number of plies and cord material in the sidewall and tread plies) provided on the tire label when deciding to buy a motor vehicle or tire. Therefore, the agency agrees with Cooper’s statement that the incorrect markings in this case do not present a serious safety concern.1 There is no effect of the noncompliance on the operational safety of vehicles on which these tires are mounted. In the agency’s judgment, the incorrect labeling of the tire construction information will have an inconsequential effect on motor 1 This decision is limited to its specific facts. As some commenters on the ANPRM noted, the existence of steel in a tire’s sidewall can be relevant to the manner in which it should be repaired or retreaded. VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:19 Sep 08, 2005 Jkt 205001 vehicle safety because most consumers do not base tire purchases or vehicle operation parameters on the number of plies in the tire. In addition, the tires are certified to meet all the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 109 and all other informational markings as required by FMVSS No. 109 are present. Cooper has corrected the problem. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the petitioner has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Cooper’s petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, the noncompliance. (Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8) Issued on: September 2, 2005. Ronald L. Medford, Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety. [FR Doc. 05–17905 Filed 9–8–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA 2005–21929; Notice 2] Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (Cooper) has determined that certain tires it manufactured during 2004 and 2005 do not comply with S6.5(f) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, ‘‘New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.’’ Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Cooper has petitioned for a determination that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance Reports.’’ Notice of receipt of a petition was published, with a 30-day comment period, on July 29, 2005 in the Federal Register (70 FR 43935). NHTSA received no comments. Cooper produced approximately 195 Power King brand tires during the period from May 15, 2005 through May 21, 2005 that do not comply with FMVSS No. 119, S6.5(f). S6.5(f) of FMVSS No. 119 requires that each tire shall be marked with ‘‘[t]he actual number of plies * * * in the sidewall and, if different, in the tread area.’’ The PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 noncompliant tires were marked ‘‘tread 2 ply steel + 2 ply polyester; sidewall 2 ply polyester.’’ The correct marking should read ‘‘tread 1 ply nylon, 2 ply steel + 2 ply polyester; sidewall 2 ply polyester.’’ Cooper believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Cooper states that ‘‘the incorrect number of tread plies on each tire does not present a safety-related defect. In addition to having the number of tread plies marked on the sidewall, the subject tires have an additional nylon tread ply.’’ Cooper states that the tires comply with all other requirements of FMVSS No. 119. The Transportation Recall, Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act (Pub. L. 106–414) required, among other things, that the agency initiate rulemaking to improve tire label information. In response, the agency published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register on December 1, 2000 (65 FR 75222). The agency received more than 20 comments on the tire labeling information required by 49 CFR Sections 571.109 and 119, Part 567, Part 574, and Part 575. In addition, the agency conducted a series of focus groups, as required by the TREAD Act, to examine consumer perceptions and understanding of tire labeling. Few of the focus group participants had knowledge of tire labeling beyond the tire brand name, tire size, and tire pressure. Based on the information obtained from comments to the ANPRM and the consumer focus groups, we have concluded that it is likely that few consumers have been influenced by the tire construction information (number of plies and cord material in the sidewall and tread plies) provided on the tire label when deciding to buy a motor vehicle or tire. Therefore, the agency agrees with Cooper’s statement that the incorrect markings in this case do not present a serious safety concern.1 There is no effect of the noncompliance on the operational safety of vehicles on which these tires are mounted. In the agency’s judgment, the incorrect labeling of the tire construction information will have an inconsequential effect on motor vehicle safety because most consumers do not base tire purchases or vehicle 1 This decision is limited to its specific facts. As some commenters on the ANPRM noted, the existence of steel in a tire’s sidewall can be relevant to the manner in which it should be repaired or retreaded. E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM 09SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Notices operation parameters on the number of plies in the tire. In addition, the tires are certified to meet all the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 119 and all other informational markings as required by FMVSS No. 119 are present. Cooper has corrected the problem. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the petitioner has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Cooper’s petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, the noncompliance. (Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8) Issued on: September 2, 2005. Ronald L. Medford, Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety. [FR Doc. 05–17906 Filed 9–8–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA 2005–21928; Notice 2] Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (Cooper) has determined that certain tires it manufactured during 2004 and 2005 do not comply with S6.5(f) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, ‘‘New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.’’ Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Cooper has petitioned for a determination that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance Reports.’’ Notice of receipt of a petition was published, with a 30-day comment period, on July 29, 2005 in the Federal Register (70 FR 43935). NHTSA received no comments. Cooper produced approximately 15,692 Cooper brand tires during the period from October 3, 2004 through April 9, 2005 that do not comply with FMVSS No. 119, S6.5(f). S6.5(f) of FMVSS No. 119 requires that each tire shall be marked with ‘‘[t]he actual number of plies * * * in the sidewall and, if different, in the tread area.’’ The noncompliant tires were marked ‘‘tread 2 ply steel + 3 ply polyester; sidewall 3 VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:19 Sep 08, 2005 Jkt 205001 ply polyester.’’ The correct marking should read ‘‘tread 1 ply nylon, 2 ply steel + 3 ply polyester; sidewall 3 ply polyester.’’ Cooper believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Cooper states that ‘‘the incorrect number of tread plies on each tire does not present a safety-related defect. In addition to having the number of tread plies marked on the sidewall, the subject tires have an additional nylon tread ply.’’ Cooper states that the tires comply with all other requirements of FMVSS No. 119. The Transportation Recall, Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act (Pub. L. 106–414) required, among other things, that the agency initiate rulemaking to improve tire label information. In response, the agency published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register on December 1, 2000 (65 FR 75222). The agency received more than 20 comments on the tire labeling information required by 49 CFR 571.109 and 119, Part 567, Part 574, and Part 575. In addition, the agency conducted a series of focus groups, as required by the TREAD Act, to examine consumer perceptions and understanding of tire labeling. Few of the focus group participants had knowledge of tire labeling beyond the tire brand name, tire size, and tire pressure. Based on the information obtained from comments to the ANPRM and the consumer focus groups, we have concluded that it is likely that few consumers have been influenced by the tire construction information (number of plies and cord material in the sidewall and tread plies) provided on the tire label when deciding to buy a motor vehicle or tire. Therefore, the agency agrees with Cooper’s statement that the incorrect markings in this case do not present a serious safety concern.1 There is no effect of the noncompliance on the operational safety of vehicles on which these tires are mounted. In the agency’s judgment, the incorrect labeling of the tire construction information will have an inconsequential effect on motor vehicle safety because most consumers do not base tire purchases or vehicle operation parameters on the number of plies in the tire. In addition, the tires are certified to meet all the performance 1 This decision is limited to its specific facts. As some commenters on the ANPRM noted, the existence of steel in a tire’s sidewall can be relevant to the manner in which it should be repaired or retreaded. PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 53713 requirements of FMVSS No. 119 and all other informational markings as required by FMVSS No. 119 are present. Cooper has corrected the problem. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the petitioner has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Cooper’s petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, the noncompliance. (Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8) Issued on: September 2, 2005. Ronald L. Medford, Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety. [FR Doc. 05–17907 Filed 9–8–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Withdrawal of Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; DaimlerChrysler National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice; withdrawal of petition for exemption. AGENCY: SUMMARY: This notice withdraws the petition by DaimlerChrysler Corporation (DaimlerChrysler) for an exemption from the parts marking requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard for the Jeep Liberty vehicle line. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor’s phone number is (202) 366– 0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–2290. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated March 30, 2005, DaimlerChrysler requested an exemption from the parts marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) for the Jeep Liberty vehicle line, beginning with model year (MY) 2006. The petition requested an exemption from the parts marking requirements pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard equipment for the entire vehicle line. On July 12, 2005, the agency granted in full the petition of E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM 09SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53712-53713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17906]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2005-21929; Notice 2]


Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (Cooper) has determined that certain 
tires it manufactured during 2004 and 2005 do not comply with S6.5(f) 
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, ``New 
pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.'' Pursuant to 
49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Cooper has petitioned for a 
determination that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety and has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR 
part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.'' Notice of receipt of a 
petition was published, with a 30-day comment period, on July 29, 2005 
in the Federal Register (70 FR 43935). NHTSA received no comments.
    Cooper produced approximately 195 Power King brand tires during the 
period from May 15, 2005 through May 21, 2005 that do not comply with 
FMVSS No. 119, S6.5(f). S6.5(f) of FMVSS No. 119 requires that each 
tire shall be marked with ``[t]he actual number of plies * * * in the 
sidewall and, if different, in the tread area.'' The noncompliant tires 
were marked ``tread 2 ply steel + 2 ply polyester; sidewall 2 ply 
polyester.'' The correct marking should read ``tread 1 ply nylon, 2 ply 
steel + 2 ply polyester; sidewall 2 ply polyester.''
    Cooper believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Cooper 
states that ``the incorrect number of tread plies on each tire does not 
present a safety-related defect. In addition to having the number of 
tread plies marked on the sidewall, the subject tires have an 
additional nylon tread ply.'' Cooper states that the tires comply with 
all other requirements of FMVSS No. 119.
    The Transportation Recall, Enhancement, Accountability, and 
Documentation (TREAD) Act (Pub. L. 106-414) required, among other 
things, that the agency initiate rulemaking to improve tire label 
information. In response, the agency published an Advance Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register on December 1, 2000 
(65 FR 75222).
    The agency received more than 20 comments on the tire labeling 
information required by 49 CFR Sections 571.109 and 119, Part 567, Part 
574, and Part 575. In addition, the agency conducted a series of focus 
groups, as required by the TREAD Act, to examine consumer perceptions 
and understanding of tire labeling. Few of the focus group participants 
had knowledge of tire labeling beyond the tire brand name, tire size, 
and tire pressure.
    Based on the information obtained from comments to the ANPRM and 
the consumer focus groups, we have concluded that it is likely that few 
consumers have been influenced by the tire construction information 
(number of plies and cord material in the sidewall and tread plies) 
provided on the tire label when deciding to buy a motor vehicle or 
tire.
    Therefore, the agency agrees with Cooper's statement that the 
incorrect markings in this case do not present a serious safety 
concern.\1\ There is no effect of the noncompliance on the operational 
safety of vehicles on which these tires are mounted. In the agency's 
judgment, the incorrect labeling of the tire construction information 
will have an inconsequential effect on motor vehicle safety because 
most consumers do not base tire purchases or vehicle

[[Page 53713]]

operation parameters on the number of plies in the tire. In addition, 
the tires are certified to meet all the performance requirements of 
FMVSS No. 119 and all other informational markings as required by FMVSS 
No. 119 are present. Cooper has corrected the problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This decision is limited to its specific facts. As some 
commenters on the ANPRM noted, the existence of steel in a tire's 
sidewall can be relevant to the manner in which it should be 
repaired or retreaded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the 
petitioner has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance 
described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, 
Cooper's petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted from the 
obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, the 
noncompliance.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at CFR 
1.50 and 501.8)

    Issued on: September 2, 2005.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 05-17906 Filed 9-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P