Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64057-64058 [2015-26804]

Download as PDF tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Notices 60 mph in 5 mph increments (i.e., 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 mph). Link conducted the tests, generally following NHTSA test protocols. The data results indicate that the test vehicle in the ‘‘noncompliant’’ configuration met the safety standard’s stopping distance requirements. Furthermore, the data results show that there is no significant difference in stopping distance performance between the two configurations. Additionally, Link performed stability and control (i.e., Braking-in-a-Curve) tests with the vehicle unloaded (unladen) representing worst case. Link conducted these tests, generally following NHTSA test protocols except that these tests were more severe than compliance tests because they were conducted at test speeds approximately 10% higher at 30 mph given a maximum drive speed of 36 mph.3 Again, data results indicate that the test vehicle in the ‘‘noncompliant’’ configuration met the safety standard’s stability and control braking requirements and there is no significant difference in braking performance between the two configurations. Mack also stated that brake release timing has been the subject of previous petitions that it believes are similar to its petition and were granted by NHTSA. In previous petitions concerning brake release timing, NHTSA emphasized that only the failure of the subject vehicles was at issue. NHTSA concluded that, ‘‘the test data results and analyses were sufficient to grant the petition for the specific conditions that cause the subject vehicles to be out of compliance with the standard’s pneumatic release time requirement.’’[emphasis added] (see 77 FR 20482) Likewise, for this petition, we only consider the failure of the subject vehicles and whether the data and analyses are sufficient to grant the petition. NHTSA’s Decision: NHTSA has concluded that the braking performance of subject noncompliant vehicles is not adversely affected as a result of slightly longer pneumatic brake actuation and release times. The dynamic performance data provided by the petitioner indicate no difference in stopping distance performance for noncompliant vehicles when compared to compliant vehicles. The data confirm that stopping distances of noncompliant vehicles 3 In the test report, Link indicated that the test vehicle achieved a maximum drive through speed of 36 mph. Per FMVSS No. 121, S5.3.6.1, the test speed is calculated as 75% of the maximum drive through speed which computes to 27 mph. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:05 Oct 21, 2015 Jkt 238001 conform to the safety standard’s performance requirements. Therefore, the subject noncompliant vehicles do not appear to pose an undue safety risk in braking performance in comparison to compliant vehicles. The petitioner has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance described herein is inconsequential to safety. The petition is hereby granted. Accordingly, Mack is exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and remedy for the subject noncompliance. 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 incomplete vehicles that Mack no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the grant of 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 incomplete vehicles under their control after Mack 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 M. Giuseppe, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. 2015–26803 Filed 10–21–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 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 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Receipt of petition. AGENCY: 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 SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 64057 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, selfaddressed 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 E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM 22OCN1 64058 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Notices 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 WeatherMaster 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. * * * * * tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES (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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:05 Oct 21, 2015 Jkt 238001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0144; Notice 2] Ford Motor Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Grant of petition. AGENCY: Ford Motor Company, (Ford) has determined that certain model year (MY) 2014 Ford Focus passenger cars do not fully comply with paragraph S3.1.4.1(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102, Transmission Shift Position Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. Ford has filed an appropriate report dated November 25, 2013 pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Amina Fisher, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366–5307, facsimile (202) 366– 5930. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Ford’s Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Ford 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. Notice of receipt of Ford’s petition was published, with a 30-Day public comment period, on June 19, 2014 in SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\22OCN1.SGM 22OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 204 (Thursday, October 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64057-64058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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