Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 51267-51268 [2016-18306]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2016 / Notices
contrary to the requirements specified
in paragraph S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 139
and 49 CFR 574,5(g)(4).
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.5.1 of
FMVSS No. 139 requires in pertinent
part:
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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.
49 CFR 574.5(g)(4) provides that the
fourth grouping of symbols within the
tire identification number shall
‘‘identify the week and year of
manufacture.’’ The regulation specifies
that ‘‘[t]he first and second symbols of
the date code must identify the week of
the year,’’ and ‘‘[t]he third and fourth
symbols of the date code identify the
last two digits of the year of
manufacture.’’ Applying these
requirements, the subject tires, which
were manufactured during week 2 of
2016, should display ‘‘0216’’ as the date
code, but instead display ‘‘0126’’ as the
date code.
V. Summary of MNA’s Petition: MNA
believes that this noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, MNA
submitted the following information
and analysis of the subject
noncompliance:
1. MNA stated that although the date
code is not correct, it specifies a date
well into the future and thus offers a
unique identification for the subject
tires. Futhermore, the incorrect but
unique coding has been recorded in
MNA’s records and can be used to
identify the subject tires in the event of
a future market action.
2. MNA also stated that there should
be no risk of duplication of the TIN in
the future since the current 2 digit plant
code will evolve to a 3 digit plant code
by April 25, 2025, thus creating a new
TIN sequence prior to week 1 of 2026
(the date inadvertently specified on the
subject tires).
3. MNA further noted that that the
incorrect date code does not
compromise the ability to register the
tire. Tire registration cards accept the
date as marked (0126). Moreover, the
Uniroyal tire registration Web page
accepts the TIN with the date as
described.
4. MNA also stated that Michelin’s
consumer care team has been informed
should there be any questions from a
consumer or dealer.
5. MNA concluded by noting that all
other markings on the subject tires
conform to the applicable regulations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:21 Aug 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
and meet all performance requirements
of FMVSS No. 139.
In its part 573 Report, MNA stated
that there is no imminent safety risk
associated with the mismarking.
In summation, MNA believes that the
described noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety, and that its petition, to
exempt MNA from providing
notification of the noncompliance, as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a
remedy for the 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 MNA 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 MNA 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. 2016–18308 Filed 8–2–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0072; 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 Mastercraft and Big O tires do
not fully comply with paragraph S5.5(f)
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51267
Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New
Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light
Vehicles. Cooper filed a report dated
May 24, 2016, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. Cooper then
petitioned NHTSA under 49 CFR part
556 for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.
DATES: The closing date for comments
on the petition is September 2, 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 be 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 https://
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 comments you have
submitted by mail were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed
postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
The petition, supporting materials,
and all comments received before the
close of business on the closing date
indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All
comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also
be filed and will be considered to the
extent possible.
When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will also
E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM
03AUN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
51268
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 3, 2016 / Notices
be published in the Federal Register
pursuant to the authority indicated at
the end of this notice.
All documents submitted to the
docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The
documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov
by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID
number for this petition is shown in the
heading of this notice.
DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477–78).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118(d) and 30120(h) and their
implementing regulations 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 as it
relates 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 22,188
of the following tubeless radial tires
manufactured between January 10,
2016, and April 30, 2016:
• Mastercraft LSR Grand Touring size
215/60R16.
• Mastercraft LSR Grand Touring size
225/60R16.
• Big O Legacy Tour Plus size 215/
60R16.
• Big O Legacy Tour Plus size 225/
60R16.
III. Noncompliance: Cooper explains
that due to a mold error, the number of
tread plies indicated on the sidewall of
the subject tires does not match the
actual number of plies in the tire
construction. The tires are marked
‘‘TREAD 1 PLY NYLON + 2 PLY STEEL
+ 2 PLY POLYESTER’’ whereas the
correct marking should be: ‘‘TREAD 1
PLY NYLON + 2PLY STEEL + 1 PLY
POLYESTER.’’ As a consequence, these
tires do not meet the requirements
specified in paragraph S5.5(f) of FMVSS
No. 139.
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.5(f) of
FMVSS No. 139 states, in pertinent part:
S5.5 Tire Markings. Except as specified in
paragraph (a) through (i) of S5.5, each tire
must be marked on each sidewall with the
information specified in S5.5(a) through (d)
and on one sidewall with the information
specified in S5.5(e) through (i) according to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:21 Aug 02, 2016
Jkt 238001
the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this
standard . . .
(f) The actual number of plies in the
sidewall, and the actual number of plies in
the tread area, if different.
V. Summary of Cooper’s Petition:
Cooper described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that
the noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates motor vehicle safety and is
unlikely to have an adverse impact on
motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, Cooper
submitted the following information
pertaining to the subject
noncompliance:
(a) Cooper states that the mislabeled
number of plies indicated on the
sidewalls has no impact on the
operational performance or durability of
the subject tires or on the safety of
vehicles on which those tires are
mounted. Cooper states that while the
subject tires do not indicate the correct
number of plies in the tread on the
outboard side, they meet all other
performance requirements under the
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
Cooper notes that the number of plies in
the tread does not impact the
performance or operation of a tire and
does not create a safety concern to either
the operator of the vehicle on which the
tires are mounted, or the safety of
personnel in the tire repair, retread and
recycle industry.
(b) Cooper also states that the subject
tires were built as designed and meet or
exceed all performance requirements
and testing requirements specified
under FMVSS No. 139. Cooper states
that the subject tires completed all
Cooper Tire internal compliance testing
criteria, including passing shipping
certification testing in January 2016. In
addition, the 215/60R16, Mastercraft
LRS Grand Touring, serial week 1116,
passed all surveillance testing
conducted in early March 2016.
(c) Cooper’s states that the stamping
deviation occurred as a result of an
administrative error when incorrect
information was entered into Cooper
Tire’s electronic specification system at
the corporate level. That system
communicates information to the mold
management system which in turn
generates the construction stamping
pocket plate. The electronic
specification system incorrectly listed
the specific tire sizes and brands as twoply, when the tires were actually
designed with an HPL construction or as
having a single ply in the tread. The
incorrect construction information was
then engraved in the pocket plate and
then installed in the affected molds.
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(d) Cooper states that it is not aware
of any crashes, injuries, customer
complaints, or field reports associated
with the mislabeling.
Cooper states that the mislabeling has
been corrected at the corporate level and
the pocket plates of the molds have been
replaced, therefore, no additional tires
will be manufactured or sold with the
noncompliance. Cooper also states that
it has conducted training with tire
engineers at the corporate level
responsible for inputting information
into the electronic specification system
on the importance of the information
they are submitting.
Cooper observed that NHTSA has
previously granted inconsequential
noncompliance petitions regarding
noncompliances that are similar to the
subject noncompliance.
Cooper concluded by expressing the
belief that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety, and that its petition to be
exempted from providing notification of
the noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
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 M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016–18306 Filed 8–2–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM
03AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51267-51268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18306]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0072; 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 Mastercraft and Big O tires do not fully comply with paragraph
S5.5(f) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New
Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Cooper filed a report dated
May 24, 2016, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. Cooper then petitioned NHTSA under 49 CFR
part 556 for a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is September 2,
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 be
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 https://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 comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will
be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and
supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed
and will be considered to the extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also
[[Page 51268]]
be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
All documents submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at
the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on
the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this
petition is shown in the heading of this notice.
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and their
implementing regulations 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 as it relates 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 22,188 of the following tubeless
radial tires manufactured between January 10, 2016, and April 30, 2016:
Mastercraft LSR Grand Touring size 215/60R16.
Mastercraft LSR Grand Touring size 225/60R16.
Big O Legacy Tour Plus size 215/60R16.
Big O Legacy Tour Plus size 225/60R16.
III. Noncompliance: Cooper explains that due to a mold error, the
number of tread plies indicated on the sidewall of the subject tires
does not match the actual number of plies in the tire construction. The
tires are marked ``TREAD 1 PLY NYLON + 2 PLY STEEL + 2 PLY POLYESTER''
whereas the correct marking should be: ``TREAD 1 PLY NYLON + 2PLY STEEL
+ 1 PLY POLYESTER.'' As a consequence, these tires do not meet the
requirements specified in paragraph S5.5(f) of FMVSS No. 139.
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.5(f) of FMVSS No. 139 states, in
pertinent part:
S5.5 Tire Markings. Except as specified in paragraph (a) through
(i) of S5.5, each tire must be marked on each sidewall with the
information specified in S5.5(a) through (d) and on one sidewall
with the information specified in S5.5(e) through (i) according to
the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this standard . . .
(f) The actual number of plies in the sidewall, and the actual
number of plies in the tread area, if different.
V. Summary of Cooper's Petition: Cooper described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates motor vehicle safety and is unlikely to
have an adverse impact on motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, Cooper submitted the following
information pertaining to the subject noncompliance:
(a) Cooper states that the mislabeled number of plies indicated on
the sidewalls has no impact on the operational performance or
durability of the subject tires or on the safety of vehicles on which
those tires are mounted. Cooper states that while the subject tires do
not indicate the correct number of plies in the tread on the outboard
side, they meet all other performance requirements under the Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Cooper notes that the number of plies
in the tread does not impact the performance or operation of a tire and
does not create a safety concern to either the operator of the vehicle
on which the tires are mounted, or the safety of personnel in the tire
repair, retread and recycle industry.
(b) Cooper also states that the subject tires were built as
designed and meet or exceed all performance requirements and testing
requirements specified under FMVSS No. 139. Cooper states that the
subject tires completed all Cooper Tire internal compliance testing
criteria, including passing shipping certification testing in January
2016. In addition, the 215/60R16, Mastercraft LRS Grand Touring, serial
week 1116, passed all surveillance testing conducted in early March
2016.
(c) Cooper's states that the stamping deviation occurred as a
result of an administrative error when incorrect information was
entered into Cooper Tire's electronic specification system at the
corporate level. That system communicates information to the mold
management system which in turn generates the construction stamping
pocket plate. The electronic specification system incorrectly listed
the specific tire sizes and brands as two-ply, when the tires were
actually designed with an HPL construction or as having a single ply in
the tread. The incorrect construction information was then engraved in
the pocket plate and then installed in the affected molds.
(d) Cooper states that it is not aware of any crashes, injuries,
customer complaints, or field reports associated with the mislabeling.
Cooper states that the mislabeling has been corrected at the
corporate level and the pocket plates of the molds have been replaced,
therefore, no additional tires will be manufactured or sold with the
noncompliance. Cooper also states that it has conducted training with
tire engineers at the corporate level responsible for inputting
information into the electronic specification system on the importance
of the information they are submitting.
Cooper observed that NHTSA has previously granted inconsequential
noncompliance petitions regarding noncompliances that are similar to
the subject noncompliance.
Cooper concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
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 M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-18306 Filed 8-2-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P