Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 53713 [05-17907]
Download as PDF
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]
[Page 53713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17907]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 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. 05-17907 Filed 9-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P