Notice2022-26271
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 2, 2022
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (Cooper Tire), has determined that certain Cooper CS5 Grant Touring and Cooper Evolution Tour replacement passenger car tires do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Cooper Tire filed a noncompliance report dated April 28, 2021, and subsequently, Cooper Tire petitioned NHTSA on May 12, 2021, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces the grant of Cooper Tire's petition.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 231 (Friday, December 2, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 231 (Friday, December 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74208-74209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26271]
[[Page 74208]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0047; 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 Tire), has determined
that certain Cooper CS5 Grant Touring and Cooper Evolution Tour
replacement passenger car tires do not fully comply with Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for
Light Vehicles. Cooper Tire filed a noncompliance report dated April
28, 2021, and subsequently, Cooper Tire petitioned NHTSA on May 12,
2021, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces the grant
of Cooper Tire's petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayton Lindley, General Engineer,
NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (325) 655-0547.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
Cooper Tire has determined that certain Cooper CS5 Grand Touring
and Cooper Evolution Tour replacement passenger car tires do not fully
comply with the requirements of paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 139,
New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles (49 CFR 571.139). Cooper
Tire filed a noncompliance report dated April 28, 2021, pursuant to 49
CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
Cooper Tire subsequently petitioned NHTSA on May 12, 2021, 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, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
Notice of receipt of Cooper Tire petition was published with a 30-
day public comment period, on May 16, 2022, in the Federal Register (87
FR 29779). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a>. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2021-0047.''
II. Tires Involved
Approximately 294 Cooper CS5 Grand Touring, size 225/50R18, and
Cooper Evolution Tour, size 225/60R16, replacement passenger car tires,
manufactured between February 14, 2021, and March 27, 2021, are
potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance
Cooper Tire explains that the subject tires were molded with an
upside down and backwards serial week and year on the outboard sidewall
and do not comply with the requirements set forth in paragraph
S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 139.
IV. Rule Requirements
Paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 139 includes the requirements
relevant to this petition.
<bullet> Each tire must be labeled with the tire identification
number required by 49 CFR part 574, which includes the date code
consisting of the week and year of manufacture, on the intended
outboard sidewall of the tire.
V. Summary of Cooper Tire's Petition
The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Cooper Tire's Petition,'' are those of Cooper Tire. They do
not reflect the views of the Agency. Cooper Tire describes the subject
noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, Cooper Tire submitted the following
reasoning:
1. The tires subject to this petition, on their outboard side only,
were molded with an upside down and backwards DOT serial week and year.
The serial number stampings should read: DOT U9 X3 1 LP 0721 and UP 78
1CW 1221. The outboard side, which includes the date code, was molded
with the date code information oriented incorrectly upside down and
backwards, which resulted in the characters being out of proper
sequence.
2. Cooper contends that the 294 tires subject to this petition meet
and/or exceed all performance requirements and all other labeling
markings as required by FMVSS No. 139.
3. Furthermore, Cooper Tire says that is not aware of any crashes,
injuries, customer complaints, or field reports associated with the
subject tires involved in this petition.
4. Cooper Tire believes that the upside down and backward date code
will not cause confusion for the consumer or dealer that is selecting
and mounting the tire, as the error is quite obvious, and there is no
logical reading or interpretation of the date code in its upside down
and backward position. Cooper Tire also believes that consumers and
dealers will easily be able to see the issue and correctly identify the
date code.
5. Cooper believes the following NHTSA statements, taken from
another petition, apply to its petition: ``The purpose of the date code
is to identify a tire so that, if necessary, the appropriate action can
be taken in the interest of public safety--such as a safety recall
notice.'' See Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 64 FR 29,080 (May 28, 1999);
see also Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, 68 FR 16,115 (April 2, 2003).
Furthermore, Cooper feels the following NHTSA statement applies to its
petition, ``[t]he agency believes that the true measure of
inconsequentiality to motor vehicle safety in this case is the effect
of the noncompliance on the ability of the tire manufacturer to
identify the tires in the event of recall.'' See Bridgestone/Firestone,
Inc., 66 FR 45,076 (Aug. 27, 2001).
6. Cooper also stated that NHTSA has granted petitions and found
that TIN noncompliance is inconsequential to safety in cases where the
TIN is out of sequence or mislabeled. See, Bridgestone/Firestone North
America Tire, LLC, 71 FR 4396 (Jan. 26, 2006) (granting petition where
date code was missing because manufacturer could still identify and
recall the tires); Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, 68 FR 16,115 (April 2,
2003) (granting petition where tires were labeled with wrong plant
code, because ``the tires have a unique DOT identification'');
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 66 FR 45,076 (Aug. 27, 2001) (granting
petition where the date code was labeled incorrectly, because ``the
information included on the tire identification label and the
manufacturer's tire production records is sufficient to ensure that
these tires can be identified in the event of a recall''); Bridgestone/
Firestone, Inc., 64 FR 29,080 (May 28, 1999) (granting petition where
the wrong year was marked in date code on the tires); Cooper Tire &
Rubber Company; 63 FR 29,059 (May 27, 1998) (granting petition where
date code was missing where tires had a unique TIN for recall
purposes); Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 60 FR 57,617 (Nov. 16, 1995)
(granting petition where date code was out of sequence); Uniroyal
Goodrich Tire Company, 59 FR 64,232 (Dec. 13, 1994)
[[Page 74209]]
(granting petition where week and year were mislabeled on tires).
Cooper Tire concludes that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and that its
petition requesting exemption from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, as well as a remedy for
the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
VI. NHTSA's Analysis
The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to
comply with a performance requirement in an FMVSS--as opposed to a
labeling requirement with no performance implications--is more
substantial and difficult to meet. Accordingly, the Agency has not
found many such noncompliances inconsequential.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses
on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event
against which a recall would otherwise protect.\2\ In general, NHTSA
does not consider the absence of complaints or injuries when
determining if a noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. The
absence of complaints does not mean vehicle occupants have not
experienced a safety issue, nor does it mean that there will not be
safety issues in the future.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
\3\ See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr.
12, 2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d
754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk
when it ``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden
engine fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some such
hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in
the future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has evaluated and analyzed the merits of the inconsequential
noncompliance petition submitted by Cooper Tire and agrees that, based
on the information presented, is granting Cooper's request for relief
from notification and remedy based on the following:
<bullet> Operational Safety & Performance: NHTSA reviewed the data
Cooper provided and noted the subject tires comply with FMVSS No. 139
test criteria.
<bullet> Traceability & Identification: NHTSA agrees that in this
case, the upside down and backwards date code in the TIN does not
appear to affect the ability of the manufacturer or consumer to
register or identify the affected tires in the event of a recall. After
reviewing a sample,\4\ the Agency agrees that the date code is legible
because this portion of the TIN is visually separated from the rest of
the TIN and the font style is such that the characters are obvious even
when rotated 180 degrees from nominal. The obvious error allows for an
accurate reading of the full TIN if/when registering and/or recalling
the tires in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ A photo of the subject noncompliance can be found in Cooper
Tire's petition at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2021-0047-0001">https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2021-0047-0001</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. NHTSA's Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that Cooper Tire 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 Tire's petition is hereby granted, and
Cooper Tire is consequently exempted from the obligation of providing
notification of, and a free remedy for, that 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 Tire 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 tires under their control after Cooper Tire 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)
Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-26271 Filed 12-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 2, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.