[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 166 (Wednesday, August 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45474-45475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22796]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. 97-28, Notice 2]
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.; Grant of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (Cooper) has determined that some of
its tires fail to comply with the labeling requirements of 49 CFR
571.119, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, ``New
Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars'' and has filed
an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ``Defect and
Noncompliance Reports.'' Cooper has also applied to be exempted from
the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301,
[[Page 45475]]
``National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety'' on the basis that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of the application was published, with a 30-day
comment period, on April 22, 1997, in the Federal Register (62 FR
19651). This notice grants the application.
In FMVSS No. 119, paragraph S6.5(d) specifies that tires be marked
on each sidewall with the maximum load rating and corresponding
inflation pressure of the tire, and paragraph S6.5(j) specifies that
each tire be marked with the letter designating the tire load range.
During the forty-seventh and forty-eighth production weeks of 1996,
Cooper manufactured 553 tires with the incorrect load and inflation
label on the serial side. The tires were the Dean Wildcat Radial (LT
235/85R16, tubeless, outline white letters, and 10 ply rating). The
incorrect label reads ``Load Range D Max at 65 PSI.'' The correct
information should have been ``Load Range E Max at 80 PSI.''
Cooper supported its application for inconsequential noncompliance
with the following information:
The mislabeling on each tire does not present a safety-related
defect. The involved tires are designed to carry a heavier load
(load range E at 80 PSI) than the incorrect labeling specified (load
range D at 65 PSI). Consequently, any misapplication of the tire
would be for the user to carry a lighter load than the maximum load
for which the tires are designed.
The involved tires have the correct load and inflation
information on the non-serial side which is the side with the
outline white letters. In addition, each tire had a paper tread
label affixed to it reflecting the correct load information.
The involved tires produced from this mold during the production
periods comply with all other requirements of 49 CFR 571.
The incorrect load range and inflation information is within the
design parameters of the tire and would not result in any
overloading or overinflation of the involved tires.
The forty-eight (48) tires remaining in Cooper's inventory will
be re-stamped with the correct load and inflation information.
NHTSA received no comments on this application during the 30-day
comment period.
The primary safety purpose of requiring the load range label on a
motor vehicle tire is to ensure that the end-users can select a tire
appropriate for their vehicles. The absence of the vehicle label
specifying the tire range load would likely result in an improper tire
selection by the tire dealer or vehicle owner. In this case, Cooper
understated the load carrying capability of the tire. Similarly, the
labeled maximum inflation pressure of 65 PSI is lower than the tire's
designed maximum inflation pressure of 80 PSI. Cooper, in effect,
produced a better tire than the label would indicate to the end-user.
The agency agrees with Cooper's rationale that a vehicle equipped with
the subject tires and loaded per the incorrect maximum load rating
would not cause an unsafe condition, because the end-user would carry a
lighter load than the load for which the tires are designed.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the
applicant has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance it
describes is inconsequential to safety. Accordingly, its application is
granted, and the applicant is exempted from providing the notification
of the noncompliance that is required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and from
remedying the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120.
(49 U.S.C. 30118, delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)
Issued on: August 21, 1997.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-22796 Filed 8-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-U
