Document ID: NHTSA-2021-0047-0003
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Cooper Tire and Rubber Co.; Approval
Posted Date: 2022-12-02T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 231 (Friday, December 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74208-74209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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 https://www.regulations.gov/. 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.
     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:
     Operational Safety & Performance: NHTSA reviewed the data 
Cooper provided and noted the subject tires comply with FMVSS No. 139 
test criteria.
     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 https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2021-0047-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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