53712 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Notices 

1This decision is limited to its specific facts. As 

some commenters on the ANPRM noted, the 

existence of steel in a tire’s sidewall can be relevant 

to the manner in which it should be repaired or 

retreaded. 

1This decision is limited to its specific facts. As 

some commenters on the ANPRM noted, the 

existence of steel in a tire’s sidewall can be relevant 

to the manner in which it should be repaired or 

retreaded. 

sidewalls * * * (e) Actual number of 

plies in the sidewall, and the actual 

number of plies in the tread area if 

different.’’ The noncompliant tires were 

marked ‘‘tread 1 ply nylon + 2 ply steel 

+ 1 ply polyester; sidewall 2 ply 

polyester.’’ The correct marking should 

read ‘‘tread 1 ply nylon, 2 ply steel + 2 

ply polyester; sidewall 2 ply polyester.’’

Cooper believes that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety and that no 

corrective action is warranted. Cooper 

states that ‘‘the incorrect number of 

tread plies on each tire does not present 

a safety-related defect. The subject tires, 

in fact, have 2 polyester tread plies.’’

Cooper states that the tires comply with 

all other requirements of FMVSS No. 

109. 

The Transportation Recall, 

Enhancement, Accountability, and 

Documentation (TREAD) Act (Pub. L. 

106–414) required, among other things, 

that the agency initiate rulemaking to 

improve tire label information. In 

response, the agency published an 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal 

Register on December 1, 2000 (65 FR 

75222). 

The agency received more than 20 

comments on the tire labeling 

information required by 49 CFR 

Sections 571.109 and 119, Part 567, Part 

574, and Part 575. In addition, the 

agency conducted a series of focus 

groups, as required by the TREAD Act, 

to examine consumer perceptions and 

understanding of tire labeling. Few of 

the focus group participants had 

knowledge of tire labeling beyond the 

tire brand name, tire size, and tire 

pressure. 

Based on the information obtained 

from comments to the ANPRM and the 

consumer focus groups, we have 

concluded that it is likely that few 

consumers have been influenced by the 

tire construction information (number of 

plies and cord material in the sidewall 

and tread plies) provided on the tire 

label when deciding to buy a motor 

vehicle or tire. 

Therefore, the agency agrees with 

Cooper’s statement that the incorrect 

markings in this case do not present a 

serious safety concern.1 There is no 

effect of the noncompliance on the 

operational safety of vehicles on which 

these tires are mounted. In the agency’s 

judgment, 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 the tire. In addition, the tires are 

certified to meet all the performance 

requirements of FMVSS No. 109 and all 

other informational markings as 

required by FMVSS No. 109 are present. 

Cooper has corrected the problem. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA has decided that the petitioner 

has met its burden of persuasion that 

the noncompliance described is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

Accordingly, Cooper’s petition is 

granted and the petitioner is exempted 

from the obligation of providing 

notification of, and a remedy for, the 

noncompliance. 

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; 

delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 

501.8) 

Issued on: September 2, 2005. 

Ronald L. Medford, 

Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle 

Safety. 

[FR Doc. 05–17905 Filed 9–8–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2005–21929; Notice 2] 

Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Grant 

of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

Cooper Tire & Rubber Company 

(Cooper) has determined that certain 

tires it manufactured during 2004 and 

2005 do not comply with S6.5(f) of 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 119, ‘‘New pneumatic tires 

for vehicles other than passenger cars.’’

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h), Cooper has petitioned for a 

determination that this noncompliance 

is inconsequential to motor vehicle 

safety and has filed an appropriate 

report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 

‘‘Defect and Noncompliance Reports.’’

Notice of receipt of a petition was 

published, with a 30-day comment 

period, on July 29, 2005 in the Federal 

Register (70 FR 43935). NHTSA 

received no comments. 

Cooper produced approximately 195 

Power King brand tires during the 

period from May 15, 2005 through May 

21, 2005 that do not comply with 

FMVSS No. 119, S6.5(f). S6.5(f) of 

FMVSS No. 119 requires that each tire 

shall be marked with ‘‘[t]he actual 

number of plies * * * in the sidewall 

and, if different, in the tread area.’’ The 

noncompliant tires were marked ‘‘tread 

2 ply steel + 2 ply polyester; sidewall 2 

ply polyester.’’ The correct marking 

should read ‘‘tread 1 ply nylon, 2 ply 

steel + 2 ply polyester; sidewall 2 ply 

polyester.’’

Cooper believes that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety and that no 

corrective action is warranted. Cooper 

states that ‘‘the incorrect number of 

tread plies on each tire does not present 

a safety-related defect. In addition to 

having the number of tread plies marked 

on the sidewall, the subject tires have an 

additional nylon tread ply.’’ Cooper 

states that the tires comply with all 

other requirements of FMVSS No. 119. 

The Transportation Recall, 

Enhancement, Accountability, and 

Documentation (TREAD) Act (Pub. L. 

106–414) required, among other things, 

that the agency initiate rulemaking to 

improve tire label information. In 

response, the agency published an 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal 

Register on December 1, 2000 (65 FR 

75222). 

The agency received more than 20 

comments on the tire labeling 

information required by 49 CFR 

Sections 571.109 and 119, Part 567, Part 

574, and Part 575. In addition, the 

agency conducted a series of focus 

groups, as required by the TREAD Act, 

to examine consumer perceptions and 

understanding of tire labeling. Few of 

the focus group participants had 

knowledge of tire labeling beyond the 

tire brand name, tire size, and tire 

pressure. 

Based on the information obtained 

from comments to the ANPRM and the 

consumer focus groups, we have 

concluded that it is likely that few 

consumers have been influenced by the 

tire construction information (number of 

plies and cord material in the sidewall 

and tread plies) provided on the tire 

label when deciding to buy a motor 

vehicle or tire. 

Therefore, the agency agrees with 

Cooper’s statement that the incorrect 

markings in this case do not present a 

serious safety concern.1 There is no 

effect of the noncompliance on the 

operational safety of vehicles on which 

these tires are mounted. In the agency’s 

judgment, 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Notices 53713 

1This decision is limited to its specific facts. As 

some commenters on the ANPRM noted, the 

existence of steel in a tire’s sidewall can be relevant 

to the manner in which it should be repaired or 

retreaded. 

operation parameters on the number of 

plies in the tire. In addition, the tires are 

certified to meet all the performance 

requirements of FMVSS No. 119 and all 

other informational markings as 

required by FMVSS No. 119 are present. 

Cooper has corrected the problem. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA has decided that the petitioner 

has met its burden of persuasion that 

the noncompliance described is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

Accordingly, Cooper’s petition is 

granted and the petitioner is exempted 

from the obligation of providing 

notification of, and a remedy for, the 

noncompliance. 

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; 

delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 

501.8) 

Issued on: September 2, 2005. 

Ronald L. Medford, 

Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle 

Safety. 

[FR Doc. 05–17906 Filed 9–8–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2005–21928; Notice 2] 

Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Grant 

of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

Cooper Tire & Rubber Company 

(Cooper) has determined that certain 

tires it manufactured during 2004 and 

2005 do not comply with S6.5(f) of 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 119, ‘‘New pneumatic tires 

for vehicles other than passenger cars.’’

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h), Cooper has petitioned for a 

determination that this noncompliance 

is inconsequential to motor vehicle 

safety and has filed an appropriate 

report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, 

‘‘Defect and Noncompliance Reports.’’

Notice of receipt of a petition was 

published, with a 30-day comment 

period, on July 29, 2005 in the Federal 

Register (70 FR 43935). NHTSA 

received no comments. 

Cooper produced approximately 

15,692 Cooper brand tires during the 

period from October 3, 2004 through 

April 9, 2005 that do not comply with 

FMVSS No. 119, S6.5(f). S6.5(f) of 

FMVSS No. 119 requires that each tire 

shall be marked with ‘‘[t]he actual 

number of plies * * * in the sidewall 

and, if different, in the tread area.’’ The 

noncompliant tires were marked ‘‘tread 

2 ply steel + 3 ply polyester; sidewall 3 

ply polyester.’’ The correct marking 

should read ‘‘tread 1 ply nylon, 2 ply 

steel + 3 ply polyester; sidewall 3 ply 

polyester.’’

Cooper believes that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety and that no 

corrective action is warranted. Cooper 

states that ‘‘the incorrect number of 

tread plies on each tire does not present 

a safety-related defect. In addition to 

having the number of tread plies marked 

on the sidewall, the subject tires have an 

additional nylon tread ply.’’ Cooper 

states that the tires comply with all 

other requirements of FMVSS No. 119. 

The Transportation Recall, 

Enhancement, Accountability, and 

Documentation (TREAD) Act (Pub. L. 

106–414) required, among other things, 

that the agency initiate rulemaking to 

improve tire label information. In 

response, the agency published an 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal 

Register on December 1, 2000 (65 FR 

75222). 

The agency received more than 20 

comments on the tire labeling 

information required by 49 CFR 571.109 

and 119, Part 567, Part 574, and Part 

575. In addition, the agency conducted 

a series of focus groups, as required by 

the TREAD Act, to examine consumer 

perceptions and understanding of tire 

labeling. Few of the focus group 

participants had knowledge of tire 

labeling beyond the tire brand name, 

tire size, and tire pressure. 

Based on the information obtained 

from comments to the ANPRM and the 

consumer focus groups, we have 

concluded that it is likely that few 

consumers have been influenced by the 

tire construction information (number of 

plies and cord material in the sidewall 

and tread plies) provided on the tire 

label when deciding to buy a motor 

vehicle or tire. 

Therefore, the agency agrees with 

Cooper’s statement that the incorrect 

markings in this case do not present a 

serious safety concern.1 There is no 

effect of the noncompliance on the 

operational safety of vehicles on which 

these tires are mounted. In the agency’s 

judgment, 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 the tire. In addition, the tires are 

certified to meet all the performance 

requirements of FMVSS No. 119 and all 

other informational markings as 

required by FMVSS No. 119 are present. 

Cooper has corrected the problem. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA has decided that the petitioner 

has met its burden of persuasion that 

the noncompliance described is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

Accordingly, Cooper’s petition is 

granted and the petitioner is exempted 

from the obligation of providing 

notification of, and a remedy for, the 

noncompliance. 

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; 

delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 

501.8) 

Issued on: September 2, 2005. 

Ronald L. Medford, 

Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle 

Safety. 

[FR Doc. 05–17907 Filed 9–8–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Withdrawal of Petition for Exemption 

From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft 

Prevention Standard; DaimlerChrysler 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal of petition 

for exemption. 

SUMMARY: This notice withdraws the 

petition by DaimlerChrysler Corporation 

(DaimlerChrysler) for an exemption 

from the parts marking requirements of 

the vehicle theft prevention standard for 

the Jeep Liberty vehicle line. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Rosalind Proctor, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 

Proctor’s phone number is (202) 366–

0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–2290. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated March 30, 2005, 

DaimlerChrysler requested an 

exemption from the parts marking 

requirements of the theft prevention 

standard (49 CFR part 541) for the Jeep 

Liberty vehicle line, beginning with 

model year (MY) 2006. The petition 

requested an exemption from the parts 

marking requirements pursuant to 49 

CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle 

Theft Prevention Standard, based on the 

installation of an antitheft device as 

standard equipment for the entire 

vehicle line. On July 12, 2005, the 

agency granted in full the petition of