Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 11644-11645 [2016-04698]
Download as PDF
11644
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Notices
listed in the notice of November 2, 2015
(80 FR 67472).
We recognize that the vision of an
applicant may change and affect his/her
ability to operate a CMV as safely as in
the past. As a condition of the
exemption, therefore, FMCSA will
impose requirements on the 28
individuals consistent with the
grandfathering provisions applied to
drivers who participated in the
Agency’s vision waiver program.
Those requirements are found at 49
CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be
physically examined every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who
attests that the vision in the better eye
continues to meet the requirement in 49
CFR 391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical
examiner who attests that the individual
is otherwise physically qualified under
49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual
provide a copy of the ophthalmologist’s
or optometrist’s report to the medical
examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each
individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for
retention in the driver’s qualification
file, or keep a copy in his/her driver’s
qualification file if he/she is selfemployed. The driver must have a copy
of the certification when driving, for
presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement
official.
V. Discussion of Comments
Hector J. Lopez (NC)
John V. Narretto, Jr. (LA)
Branden J. Ramos (CA)
Sonny Scott (OH)
Jarrod R. Seirer (KS)
Vince A. Thompson (OR)
Daniel R. Viscaya (NC)
Carlos Vives, Jr. (NJ)
Otis H. Wright, Jr. (MD)
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, each exemption will be valid
for 2 years unless revoked earlier by
FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked
if: (1) The person fails to comply with
the terms and conditions of the
exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than
was maintained before it was granted; or
(3) continuation of the exemption would
not be consistent with the goals and
objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
If the exemption is still effective at the
end of the 2-year period, the person may
apply to FMCSA for a renewal under
procedures in effect at that time.
Issued on: February 24, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016–04801 Filed 3–3–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2015–0091; Notice 2]
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Grant
of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
IV. Conclusion
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
FMCSA received no comments in this
proceeding.
AGENCY:
Based upon its evaluation of the 28
exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the
vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the
requirements cited above (49 CFR
391.64(b)):
Bruce D. Amundson (IA)
Terry M. Baldwin (PA)
Gene B. Clyde, Jr. (NY)
Joseph Coelho Jr. (RI)
Levi R. Coutcher (WA)
Leonard H. Culbertson (GA)
Craig L. Dawson, Sr. (OH)
Jason R. Gast (MO)
Nirmal S. Gill (CA)
Robert C. Green, Jr. (PA)
Stanley Grubb (KY)
Louis M. Hankins (IL)
Nathan H. Jacobs (NM)
Danny L. Keplinger (VA)
Kimber S. Krushinski (NY)
Carmelo Lana (NJ)
Keith A. Lang (TX)
Nathan D. Langham (IL)
Michael S. Lewis (NC)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:22 Mar 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
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 filed a
report dated August 13, 2015, pursuant
to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports. Cooper then petitioned NHTSA
under 49 CFR part 556 requesting a
decision that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
ADDRESSES: For further information on
this decision contact Abraham Diaz,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), telephone
(202) 366–5310, facsimile (202) 366–
5930.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
Notice of receipt of Cooper’s petition
was published, with a 30-day public
comment period, on October 22, 2015 in
the Federal Register (80 FR 64057). No
comments were received. To view the
petition and all supporting documents
log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Web site
at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2015–
0091.’’
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.
. . .
(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
E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM
04MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Notices
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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. The petition and all
supporting documents are available by
logging onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Web site
at: https://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’S Decision
NHTSA’s Analysis: While the first
grouping of the tire identification
number (TIN) on the subject tires is
marked with the incorrect
manufacturer’s identification code
‘‘U8,’’ instead of the correct code ‘‘U9,’’
this mismarking is only on the inner
sidewall. The correct full TIN is
properly marked on the outside
sidewall, and the correct corporate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:22 Mar 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
brand name is marked on both
sidewalls. NHTSA believes this
noncompliance will not cause
misidentification of the tire
manufacturer should a safety defect be
identified in the subject tires.
Cooper additionally informed NHTSA
that the subject tires meet and/or exceed
all performance requirements and all
other labeling markings as required by
FMVSS No. 139 and that Cooper is not
aware of any crashes, injuries, customer
complaints, or field reports associated
with the subject tires.
Cooper also notified NHTSA that
proper registration of the tires will be
accepted with the erroneous code.
Cooper collectively worked with CIMS
(Computerized Information and
Management Services), Inc., to ensure
that the subject tires are correctly
registered regardless of the incorrect
code.
The agency believes that the true
measure of inconsequentiality to motor
vehicle safety in this case is that there
is no effect of the noncompliance on the
operational safety of vehicles on which
these tires are mounted and that the
manufacturer of the tires can be readily
identified.
Cooper also informed NHTSA that on
May 29, 2015 it corrected the mold
problem that originated the noncompliance.
NHTSA Decision: In consideration of
the foregoing, NHTSA finds that Cooper
has met its burden of persuasion that
the subject FMVSS No. 139
noncompliance in the affected tires is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Cooper’s petition is hereby
granted and Cooper is consequently
exempted from the obligation of
providing notification of, and a free
remedy for, the subject noncompliance
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
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 tires
that Cooper no longer controlled at the
time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve
tire 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
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11645
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 M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016–04698 Filed 3–3–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0025; Notice 1]
BMW of North America, LLC, Receipt
of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
AGENCY:
BMW of North America, LLC
(BMW), has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2016 BMW 7 Series
passenger cars do not fully comply with
paragraph S7.7.13.3 of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
108, Lamps, reflective devices and
associated equipment. BMW filed a
report dated January 21, 2016, pursuant
to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports. BMW then petitioned NHTSA
under 49 CFR part 556 requesting a
decision that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
DATES: The closing date for comments
on the petition is April 4, 2016.
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 in the title 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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM
04MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11644-11645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04698]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0091; Notice 2]
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant 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 filed a report dated
August 13, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. Cooper then petitioned NHTSA under 49 CFR
part 556 requesting a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Abraham
Diaz, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5310, facsimile
(202) 366-5930.
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.
Notice of receipt of Cooper's petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on October 22, 2015 in the Federal Register (80
FR 64057). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2015-0091.''
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
[[Page 11645]]
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. The
petition and all supporting documents are available by logging onto the
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at: https://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'S Decision
NHTSA's Analysis: While the first grouping of the tire
identification number (TIN) on the subject tires is marked with the
incorrect manufacturer's identification code ``U8,'' instead of the
correct code ``U9,'' this mismarking is only on the inner sidewall. The
correct full TIN is properly marked on the outside sidewall, and the
correct corporate brand name is marked on both sidewalls. NHTSA
believes this noncompliance will not cause misidentification of the
tire manufacturer should a safety defect be identified in the subject
tires.
Cooper additionally informed NHTSA that the subject tires meet and/
or exceed all performance requirements and all other labeling markings
as required by FMVSS No. 139 and that Cooper is not aware of any
crashes, injuries, customer complaints, or field reports associated
with the subject tires.
Cooper also notified NHTSA that proper registration of the tires
will be accepted with the erroneous code. Cooper collectively worked
with CIMS (Computerized Information and Management Services), Inc., to
ensure that the subject tires are correctly registered regardless of
the incorrect code.
The agency believes that the true measure of inconsequentiality to
motor vehicle safety in this case is that there is no effect of the
noncompliance on the operational safety of vehicles on which these
tires are mounted and that the manufacturer of the tires can be readily
identified.
Cooper also informed NHTSA that on May 29, 2015 it corrected the
mold problem that originated the non-compliance.
NHTSA Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that
Cooper has met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 139
noncompliance in the affected tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, Cooper's petition is hereby granted and Cooper is
consequently exempted from the obligation of providing notification of,
and a free remedy for, the subject noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118
and 30120.
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 tires that Cooper no longer controlled at
the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve tire 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 M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-04698 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P