Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

Topics:  Mastercraft, Big O

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
7 April 2017

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 66 (Friday, April 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17075-17076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06957]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0072; 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 Mastercraft and Big O tires do not fully comply with Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial 
Tires for Light Vehicles. Cooper filed a defect report dated May 24, 
2016, and amended it on June 1, 2016. Cooper also petitioned NHTSA on 
June 21, 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 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 
defect report dated May 24, 2016, and amended it on June 1, 2016, 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility 
and Reports. Cooper also petitioned NHTSA on June 21, 2016, pursuant to 
49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and their implementing regulations at 
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 
51267). 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-2016-0072.''
    II. Tires Involved: Affected are 22,188 of the following tubeless 
radial tires manufactured between February 14, 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 + 2 PLY 
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 to motor vehicle safety.

[[Page 17076]]

    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 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's Decision

    NHTSA's Analysis: The agency agrees with Cooper that the 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The agency 
believes that one 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. The 
safety of people working in the tire retread, repair and recycling 
industries must also be considered and is a measure of 
inconsequentiality.
    Although tire construction affects the strength and durability of 
tires, neither the agency nor the tire industry provides information 
relating tire strength and durability to the number of plies and types 
of ply cord material in the tread sidewall. Therefore, tire dealers and 
customers should consider the tire construction information along with 
other information such as the load capacity, maximum inflation 
pressure, and tread wear, temperature, and traction ratings, to assess 
performance capabilities of various tires. In the agency's judgement, 
the incorrect labeling of the tire construction information will have 
an inconsequential effect on motor vehicle safety because most 
consumers do not base tire purchases or vehicle operation parameters on 
the number of plies in a tire.
    The agency also believes the noncompliance will have no measureable 
effect on the safety of the tire retread, repair, and recycling 
industries. The use of steel cord construction in the sidewall and 
tread is the primary safety concern of these industries. In this case, 
since the tire sidewalls are marked correctly for the number of steel 
plies, this potential safety concern does not exist.
    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, 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 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. 2017-06957 Filed 4-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P