[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17510-17511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07169]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0071; 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 MULTI-MILE Grand Tour LS passenger vehicle tires do not fully 
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New 
Pneumatic Tires Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Cooper filed a defect 
report dated May 24, 2016. Cooper also petitioned NHTSA on June 8, 
2016, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential 
as it relates 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: Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (Cooper), has determined 
that certain MULTI-MILE Grand Tour LS passenger vehicle 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 defect report dated May 24, 2016, pursuant to 
49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
    Cooper petitioned NHTSA on June 8, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 
30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, 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.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day 
public comment period, on August 3, 2016 in the Federal Register (81 FR 
51269). No comments were received. To view the petition and all 
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System 
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online 
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2016-0071.''
    II. Tires Involved: Affected are approximately 37 Cooper Tire 
MULTI-MILE Grand Tour LS Size 205/70R15 Tubeless Radial Tires 
manufactured between March 24, 2016 and March 29, 2016.
    III. Noncompliance: Cooper explains that the noncompliance is that 
the outboard 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 the manufacturer's 
identification mark ``Y9,'' assigned to a manufacturing facility in 
P.T. Gadjah Tunggual, Kabupaten Tangerang, Jawa Barat, Indonesia, 
instead of ``U9,'' assigned to Cooper's manufacturing facility in 
Tupelo, Mississippi, where the tires were actually produced.
    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 on 
account of the fact that while the subject tires contain an incorrect 
manufacturer's identification mark on the outboard sidewall, the full 
and correct tire code (including the correct manufacturer's 
identification mark) is available on the intended inboard sidewall.
    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 incorrect 
manufacturer identification issue so that cards containing the ``Y9'' 
designation will be accepted and properly processed when all other 
information accurately identifies the subject tires. Additionally, 
consistent with its usual practices, whenever a tire registration card 
is submitted with inaccurate or incomplete information, Cooper sends a 
mailing to the consumer seeking additional information by providing a 
prepaid response card.
    (b) Cooper has also modified its database to accept ``Y9'' when 
other information (brand, serial weeks affected etc.) is accurate.
    (c) Cooper has contacted Computerized Information and Management 
Services, Inc. (CIMS), a third-party vendor that collects and provides 
tire registration cards to Cooper, so that tire registration cards will 
not be rejected solely due to improper plant code information.
    Cooper also noted that while the subject tires are mislabeled only 
with the plant code on the outboard side, they meet all other 
performance requirements of the applicable standard. The company 
observed that plant code

[[Page 17511]]

information has no bearing on 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. Cooper also stated that 
on March 29, 2016 the incorrect mold was taken out of service and has 
not been used since.
    Please refer to Cooper's petition for its 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 as it relates to motor vehicle 
safety, and that its petition, to exempt Cooper from providing 
notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and 
remedying the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be 
granted.
    NHTSA'S DECISION:
    NHTSA'S Analysis:
    In this case, the agency believes that one measure of 
inconsequentiality to motor vehicle safety is that there is no effect 
of the noncompliance on the operational safety of the vehicles on which 
these tires are mounted. Cooper certified and stated that the subject 
tires meet and/or exceed all performance requirements and all other 
labeling markings required by FMVSS No. 139, and therefore NHTSA has no 
reason to believe that there are any operational safety issues for 
these tires.
    Second, the agency believes it is necessary that consumers be able 
to readily identify the tire manufacturer for safety reasons. Cooper 
explained that while the tire identification number (TIN) on the 
outboard sidewall of the subject tires is marked with the incorrect 
manufacturer's identification mark (known in the industry as ``plant 
code'') ``Y9,'' instead of the correct code ``U9'', the information 
which identifies the correct manufacturer's identification mark, is 
properly marked on the inboard sidewall. These tires can also be 
identified by the Cooper brand name and by the tire size marked on the 
sidewall of the subject tires.
    Third, NHTSA recognizes that Cooper took steps to prevent the 
possibility that customers would not be able to register their tires 
because those tires have the incorrect manufacturer's identification 
mark on them. Cooper worked with CIMS (Computerized Information and 
Management Services), Inc., to ensure that the registration database 
could accept the registration regardless of the incorrect code.
    Finally, Cooper informed the agency that in an effort to prevent 
reoccurrence of this noncompliance, they have implemented a change to 
their support software. Specifically, the selection of the plant code 
is no longer manual, but rather selected from a drop down menu with 
only one choice ``U9.'' NHTSA feels that this is important to ensure 
this noncompliance is corrected on all of Cooper's future production 
tires since the cumulative effect of recurring noncompliances could 
result in a safety problem.
    NHTSA's 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 on 
this petition 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 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. 2017-07169 Filed 4-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P