China Manufacturers Alliance, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78562-78564 [2014-30486]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
78562
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2014 / Notices
generic material marking does not
influence the purchase nor the fitment
of tires to vehicles, the above described
noncompliance is viewed by MNA to
have no impact on the performance of
the tire, nor the associated motor
vehicle safety.
(B) The subject tires contain the
necessary tire material labeling
information on at least one sidewall.
The number of reinforcing plies in the
tread, and in the sidewall, are correct.
It is the descriptor for the generic
material which is not consistent with
the actual content of the tire—
‘‘Polyamide’’ in place of ‘‘Polyester.’’
Since this marking is only on one
sidewall and there is no other marking
to compare it to, consumers will not be
confused by the content of the marking,
nor do they make purchasing decisions
based upon this mark. Only a specialist,
familiar with the differences between
‘‘Polyamide’’ and ‘‘Polyester’’, with
access to the internal content of the tire,
would recognize this discrepancy.
(C) This marking discrepancy has no
impact on a consumer’s, dealer’s, or
distributor’s ability, nor our ability, to
identify product in the event of a market
action. During market actions, the tire
dimension, brand name, load capacity,
and TIN are used to identify tires which
are to be removed from the market. The
tire’s generic material content marking
would therefore not have an impact on
a consumer’s or dealer’s ability to
implement a market action.
(D) MNA stated its belief that NHTSA
has granted previous petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance
involving noncompliant ply-cord
generic material content labeling. For
example, the term ‘‘Polyester’’ was
substituted for ‘‘Nylon’’ in a tread ply
labeling noncompliance for which a
petition was filled by Goodyear Tire and
Rubber Company (Goodyear). In that
case, NHTSA agreed with Goodyear that
the non-compliance was
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
See 77 FR 2775.
MNA has additionally informed
NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future
production motorcycle tires will comply
with FMVSS No. 119.
In summation, MNA believes that the
described noncompliance of the subject
motorcycle tires is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition, to exempt MNA from
providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30120 should be granted.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:42 Dec 29, 2014
Jkt 235001
NHTSA Decision
NHTSA Analysis: The agency agrees
with MNA that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
The agency believes that the true
measure of inconsequentiality to motor
vehicle safety in this case is that there
is no effect of the noncompliances on
the operational safety of vehicles on
which these tires are mounted.
Although tire construction affects the
strength and durability, 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
and sidewall. Therefore, tire dealers and
customers should consider the tire
construction information along with
other information such as load capacity,
maximum inflation pressure, and tread
wear, temperature, and traction ratings,
to assess performance capabilities of
various tires.
In the agency’s judgment, the
incorrect labeling of the tire
construction information in this
instance will have an inconsequential
effect on motor vehicle safety because
most consumers do not base tire
purchases or vehicle operation
parameters on the ply material in a tire.
NHTSA Decision: In consideration of
the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that
MNA has met its burden of persuasion
that the FMVSS No. 119 noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, MNA’s petition is
hereby granted and MNA is exempted
from the obligation of providing
notification of, and a 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
noncompliant tires that MNA no longer
controlled at the time it determined that
the noncompliance existed. However,
the granting of this petition does not
relieve vehicle 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 MNA notified them that the
subject noncompliance existed.
PO 00000
Frm 00182
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8).
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014–30241 Filed 12–29–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0083; Notice 2]
China Manufacturers Alliance, LLC,
Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
AGENCY:
China Manufacturers
Alliance, LLC (CMA) and Double Coin
Holdings, Ltd (DCHL) have determined
that certain Double Coin and Dynatrac
brand truck & bus radial replacement
tires that were imported by CMA and
manufactured by DCHL do not fully
comply with paragraph S6.5 of Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor
Vehicles with a GVWR of More Than
4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) and
Motorcycles. CMA and DCHL filed an
appropriate report dated June 17, 2014,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports.
ADDRESSES: For further information on
this decision contact Abraham Diaz,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), telephone
(202) 366–5310, facsimile (202) 366–
5930.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. CMA and DCHL’s Petition: Pursuant
to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and
the rule implementing those provisions
at 49 CFR part 556, CMA and DCHL
submitted a petition for an exemption
from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301
on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of CMA and DCHL’s
petition was published, with a 30-Day
public comment period, on September
15, 2014 in the Federal Register (79 FR
55068). No comments were received. To
view the petition and all supporting
documents log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Web site
at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2014 / Notices
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2014–
0083.’’
II. Replacement Tires Involved:
Affected are approximately 1,753,089
Double Coin and Dynatrac brand truck
& bus radial (TBR) replacement tires
that were imported by CMA and
manufactured by DCHL tires from June
2011 to June 2014 (DOT date codes 2711
to 2614). Refer to CMA and DCHL’s 49
CFR part 573 report for descriptions of
the tire sizes and other specifics.
III. Noncompliance: CMA and DCHL
describe the noncompliance as the
inadvertent omission of the letter
marking that designates the tire Load
Range from the tire sidewall.
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S6.5 of
FMVSS No. 119 requires in pertinent
part:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
S6.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in
this paragraph, each tire shall be marked on
each sidewall with the information specified
in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section.
The markings shall be placed between the
maximum section width (exclusive of
sidewall decorations or curb ribs) and the
bead on at least one sidewall, unless the
maximum section width of the tire is located
in an area which is not more than one-fourth
of the distance from the bead to the shoulder
of the tire. If the maximum section width
falls within that area, the markings shall
appear between the bead and a point one-half
the distance from the bead to the shoulder of
the tire, on at least one sidewall. The
markings shall be in letters and numerals not
less than 2 mm (0.078 inch) high and raised
above or sunk below the tire surface not less
that 0.4 mm (0.015 inch), except that the
marking depth shall be not less than 0.25 mm
(0.010 inch) in the case of motorcycle tires.
The tire identification and the DOT symbol
labeling shall comply with part 574 of this
chapter. Markings may appear on only one
sidewall and the entire sidewall area may be
used in the case of motorcycle tires and
recreational, boat, baggage, and special trailer
tires. . . .
(j) The letter designating the tire load
range.
V. Summary of CMA and DCHL’s
Analyses: CMA and DCHL stated their
belief that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety
for the following reasons:
1. CMA has certified that the subject
tires are fully compliant to all
requirements of FMVSS No. 119 except
for the aforementioned omission issue.
The tires are manufactured to the
specifications and are able to carry the
specified weight designed for these tires
and as mandated by FMVSS No. 119.
2. CMA stated that NHTSA tested two
samples from the tires in question for
endurance and found them to comply
with the required standards of FMVSS
No. 119, and that in addition to the S6.5
required markings, CMA also includes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:42 Dec 29, 2014
Jkt 235001
redundant safety markings on some of
the most critical criterion of a TBR tire.
With FMVSS No. 119 requiring items
S6.5 (a–j) as mandatory, CMA also lists
data that assists dealers/consumers in
recognizing the tire’s abilities and
performance. Included on the sidewall
of these tires, but not mandatory
requirements by FMVSS No. 119, are
Load Index for both single and dual
placement of the tire, Ply Rating and
Speed Rating.
3. CMA believes that Load Index is a
redundant data point for Load Range.
Both measure the important max load/
max pressure data required on the tire
sidewall. In addition, the Tire and Rim
Association (TRA) data book lists a
conversion chart as to Load Range and
Ply Rating correlation. Thus, the
information that the Load Range letter is
meant to convey is already included on
the tire in two other ways, i.e. Load
Index and Ply Rating.
4. CMA has certified that the subject
tires have been properly manufactured
to the requirements of FMVSS No. 119
including all static and dynamic
requirements and design requirements
for max load requirements as well as
additional information for consumers to
review that correlate to load range so the
noncompliance is one of format of the
markings.
5. CMA believes that there is little to
no risk of overloading by an end-user
because of the inclusion of the Load
Index and Ply Ratings. Even in the
absence of the Load Range, an end-user
would have to ignore the max load/max
pressure data on the tire and the ply
rating in order to create a risk as to
motor vehicle safety.
6. CMA also believes that because the
tires in question meet the performance
standards of FMVSS No. 119, and the
information conveyed by the Load
Range is imparted to end-users by both
the required Load Index and the
optional Ply Rating, the absence of the
Load Range on these tires is
inconsequential as to motor vehicle
safety.
CMA and DCHL has additionally
informed NHTSA that it has corrected
the noncompliance so that all future
production replacement tires will
comply with FMVSS No. 119.
In summation, CMA and DCHL
believe that the described
noncompliance of the subject
replacement tires is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition, to exempt CMA and DCHL’s
from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30120 should be granted.
PO 00000
Frm 00183
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
78563
NHTSA Decision
NHTSA Analysis: The purpose for the
Load Range labeling letter required by
paragraph S6.5(j) of FMVSS No. 119 is
to provide information to assist the tire
purchaser about the load carrying
capabilities of the tire. In the case of the
subject tires, CMA and DCHL stated that
the information the Load Range letter is
meant to convey is also labeled on the
subject tires in two other ways: (1) The
Load Index, which is a numerical code
correlating to the maximum load
carrying capacity of the tire and (2) the
Ply Rating (an additional means vehicle
manufacturers use to properly select
tires for a particular application
(abbreviated on the tires as ‘‘PR’’)).
NHTSA agrees that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety in this case because
the information intended to be
conveyed by the missing Load Range
letter is communicated by other means
on the tires, specifically:
1. The Ply Rating stamped on the
sidewall of the subject tires correctly
correlates to the Load Range
designation/Ply Rating Equivalency
table listed by The Tire and Rim
Association Inc. (TRA) 2013 book.
Furthermore, the Load Range listed in
the table is also correctly associated to
the Tire Size of the subject tires.
2. The service index or Load Index
stamped on the sidewall of the subject
tires, which provides another means for
a customer to properly select a tire for
a particular application, also correctly
correlates to the Load Index listed by
The Tire and Rim Association Inc.
(TRA) 2013 book for the subject tires.
3. The maximum load and maximum
pressure stamped on the sidewall of the
subject tires correctly correlates to the
maximum loads and pressures listed by
The Tire and Rim Association Inc.
(TRA) 2013 book.
Finally, the tires are designed to meet
all other applicable requirements of
FMVSS No. 119.
NHTSA Decision: In consideration of
the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that
CMA and DCHL have met their burden
of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 119
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, CMA
and DCHL’s petition is hereby granted
and CMA and DCHL are exempted from
the obligation of providing notification
of, and a 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
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
78564
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2014 / Notices
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, any
decision on this petition only applies to
the subject tires that CMA and DCHL no
longer controlled at the time it
determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, the granting of this
petition does not relieve CMA and
DCHL 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 CMA and DCHL 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,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014–30486 Filed 12–29–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0147; Notice 2]
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Grant
of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Grant of petition.
AGENCY:
American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc. (Honda) has determined that the
tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS)
low tire pressure warning for certain
model year (MY) 2011 and 2012 Acura
TSX passenger cars equipped with
accessory 18-inch diameter wheels sold
at Honda dealerships do not comply
with paragraph S4.2(a) of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
138 Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems.
Honda has filed an appropriate report
dated September 27, 2012, pursuant to
49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports.
ADDRESSES: For further information on
this decision contact Maurice Hicks,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), telephone
(202) 366–1708, facsimile (202) 366–
5930.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:42 Dec 29, 2014
Jkt 235001
I. Honda’s Petition: Pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the
rule implementing those provisions at
49 CFR part 556, Honda submitted a
petition for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of
49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that
this noncompliance is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of Honda’s petition
was published, with a 30-day public
comment period, on July 22, 2013, in
the Federal Register (78 FR 43965.) No
comments were received. To view the
petition and all supporting documents
log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Web site
at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2012–
0147.’’
II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are
approximately 212 model years 2011
and 2012 Acura TSX passenger cars
equipped with accessory 18-inch
diameter wheels sold at Honda
dealerships.
III. Noncompliance: Honda explains
that the noncompliance is that when the
accessory wheels and tires are installed
on the subject vehicles, the preset TPMS
warning level cannot be adjusted to
warn at a higher cold inflation pressure
for the accessory tires. The TPMS
system on these vehicles is set for the
OEM 17-inch diameter tires with
recommended 230 kPa (33 psi), not the
accessory 18-inch tires with
recommended 260 kPa (38 psi).
Honda set the TPMS warning level for
the OEM tires at 183 kPa (26.5 psi),
which is approximately 20 percent
below the recommended inflation
pressure. Standard 138 requires a
warning when the pressure is equal to
or less than 25 percent below the
recommended inflation pressure. For
the accessory tires, 25 percent below
260 kPa (38 psi) is 195 kPa (28.3 psi),
but the telltale does not illuminate until
the tire pressure reaches 183 kPa (26.5
psi). Therefore, the vehicles do not
comply with paragraph S4.2(a) of
FMVSS No. 138.
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.2(a) of
FMVSS No. 138 requires in pertinent
part:
S4.2 TPMS detection requirements.
The tire pressure monitoring system
must:
(a) Illuminate a low tire pressure warning
telltale not more than 20 minutes after the
inflation pressure in one or more of the
vehicle’s tires, up to a total of four tires, is
equal to or less than either the pressure 25
percent below the vehicle manufacturer’s
recommended cold inflation pressure, or the
pressure specified in the 3rd column of Table
1 of this standard for the corresponding type
of tire, whichever is higher;
PO 00000
Frm 00184
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
V. Summary of Honda’s Analyses: A
total of approximately 848 wheels, or
212 complete wheel sets, were sold to
Acura dealerships by Honda between
November 2010 and April 2012. These
wheels were sold with a replacement
tire pressure placard, in accordance
with the requirements of FMVSS No.
110 ‘‘Tire Selection and Rims’’,
indicating an inflation pressure of 260
kPa (38 psi) for the recommended 225/
45ZR 18 tire size with an 95Y load
capacity rating. There have been no
reports of crashes, injuries or death as
a result of the accessory tire being used
with the standard TPMS threshold.
After the beginning of retail sales of
2012 model year Acura TSX models
Honda discovered that the
recommended electronic method of
updating the TPMS setting for these
accessory wheels would incorrectly
inform technicians that the adjustments
had been completed successfully. The
result is that the TPMS warning
threshold remains at Honda’s setting for
the OEM 17-inch diameter wheels of not
less than 183kPa (26.5psi) for the
standard recommended tire pressure of
230kPa (33psi). The minimum allowable
TPMS threshold for the 18-inch
diameter accessory wheels would be
195kPA (28 psi) (28.3psi using
conversion factor 1psi = 6.895kPa),
based on the recommended pressure of
260kPa (38psi) as indicated on the tire
pressure placard.
Honda believes that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety because even at the
lower TPMS threshold, adequate load
capacity remains for the tires on these
vehicles. Honda indicated that it also
conducted dynamic testing to confirm
that the handling and stability of the
vehicle is not adversely affected at the
lower pressures.
The maximum load capacity for each
of the P225/45ZR 18 95Y tires for this
vehicle is 575 kilograms (1,268lbs) at
230kPa (33psi), calculated using the
Japan Automotive Tyre Manufacturer’s
Association (JATMA) method, as
recognized by NHTSA in FMVSS No.
110. The maximum allowable load
according to the Gross Axle Weight
Ratings (GAWR) for a 2011 or 2012
Acura TSX is 546.6 kilograms (1,207.2
lbs) for each front tire and 514.9
kilograms (1,135 lbs) for each rear tire,
well within the load capacity specified
by JATMA.
At 80% of the lower pressure for the
OEM 17-inch tires (230kPa (33psi), as
opposed to the 260kPa (38psi)
recommended on the tire pressure
placard for the 18-inch accessory tires),
the low tire pressure indicator will
illuminate at 183kPa (26.5psi).
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78562-78564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30486]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0083; Notice 2]
China Manufacturers Alliance, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: China Manufacturers Alliance, LLC (CMA) and Double Coin
Holdings, Ltd (DCHL) have determined that certain Double Coin and
Dynatrac brand truck & bus radial replacement tires that were imported
by CMA and manufactured by DCHL do not fully comply with paragraph S6.5
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic
Tires for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of More Than 4,536 Kilograms
(10,000 Pounds) and Motorcycles. CMA and DCHL filed an appropriate
report dated June 17, 2014, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Abraham
Diaz, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5310, facsimile
(202) 366-5930.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. CMA and DCHL's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and the rule implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556,
CMA and DCHL submitted a petition for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
Notice of receipt of CMA and DCHL's petition was published, with a
30-Day public comment period, on September 15, 2014 in the Federal
Register (79 FR 55068). No comments were received. To view the petition
and all supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
[[Page 78563]]
follow the online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-
2014-0083.''
II. Replacement Tires Involved: Affected are approximately
1,753,089 Double Coin and Dynatrac brand truck & bus radial (TBR)
replacement tires that were imported by CMA and manufactured by DCHL
tires from June 2011 to June 2014 (DOT date codes 2711 to 2614). Refer
to CMA and DCHL's 49 CFR part 573 report for descriptions of the tire
sizes and other specifics.
III. Noncompliance: CMA and DCHL describe the noncompliance as the
inadvertent omission of the letter marking that designates the tire
Load Range from the tire sidewall.
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119 requires in
pertinent part:
S6.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in this paragraph, each
tire shall be marked on each sidewall with the information specified
in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section. The markings shall be
placed between the maximum section width (exclusive of sidewall
decorations or curb ribs) and the bead on at least one sidewall,
unless the maximum section width of the tire is located in an area
which is not more than one-fourth of the distance from the bead to
the shoulder of the tire. If the maximum section width falls within
that area, the markings shall appear between the bead and a point
one-half the distance from the bead to the shoulder of the tire, on
at least one sidewall. The markings shall be in letters and numerals
not less than 2 mm (0.078 inch) high and raised above or sunk below
the tire surface not less that 0.4 mm (0.015 inch), except that the
marking depth shall be not less than 0.25 mm (0.010 inch) in the
case of motorcycle tires. The tire identification and the DOT symbol
labeling shall comply with part 574 of this chapter. Markings may
appear on only one sidewall and the entire sidewall area may be used
in the case of motorcycle tires and recreational, boat, baggage, and
special trailer tires. . . .
(j) The letter designating the tire load range.
V. Summary of CMA and DCHL's Analyses: CMA and DCHL stated their
belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety for the following reasons:
1. CMA has certified that the subject tires are fully compliant to
all requirements of FMVSS No. 119 except for the aforementioned
omission issue. The tires are manufactured to the specifications and
are able to carry the specified weight designed for these tires and as
mandated by FMVSS No. 119.
2. CMA stated that NHTSA tested two samples from the tires in
question for endurance and found them to comply with the required
standards of FMVSS No. 119, and that in addition to the S6.5 required
markings, CMA also includes redundant safety markings on some of the
most critical criterion of a TBR tire. With FMVSS No. 119 requiring
items S6.5 (a-j) as mandatory, CMA also lists data that assists
dealers/consumers in recognizing the tire's abilities and performance.
Included on the sidewall of these tires, but not mandatory requirements
by FMVSS No. 119, are Load Index for both single and dual placement of
the tire, Ply Rating and Speed Rating.
3. CMA believes that Load Index is a redundant data point for Load
Range. Both measure the important max load/max pressure data required
on the tire sidewall. In addition, the Tire and Rim Association (TRA)
data book lists a conversion chart as to Load Range and Ply Rating
correlation. Thus, the information that the Load Range letter is meant
to convey is already included on the tire in two other ways, i.e. Load
Index and Ply Rating.
4. CMA has certified that the subject tires have been properly
manufactured to the requirements of FMVSS No. 119 including all static
and dynamic requirements and design requirements for max load
requirements as well as additional information for consumers to review
that correlate to load range so the noncompliance is one of format of
the markings.
5. CMA believes that there is little to no risk of overloading by
an end-user because of the inclusion of the Load Index and Ply Ratings.
Even in the absence of the Load Range, an end-user would have to ignore
the max load/max pressure data on the tire and the ply rating in order
to create a risk as to motor vehicle safety.
6. CMA also believes that because the tires in question meet the
performance standards of FMVSS No. 119, and the information conveyed by
the Load Range is imparted to end-users by both the required Load Index
and the optional Ply Rating, the absence of the Load Range on these
tires is inconsequential as to motor vehicle safety.
CMA and DCHL has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected
the noncompliance so that all future production replacement tires will
comply with FMVSS No. 119.
In summation, CMA and DCHL believe that the described noncompliance
of the subject replacement tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety, and that its petition, to exempt CMA and DCHL's from providing
recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120
should be granted.
NHTSA Decision
NHTSA Analysis: The purpose for the Load Range labeling letter
required by paragraph S6.5(j) of FMVSS No. 119 is to provide
information to assist the tire purchaser about the load carrying
capabilities of the tire. In the case of the subject tires, CMA and
DCHL stated that the information the Load Range letter is meant to
convey is also labeled on the subject tires in two other ways: (1) The
Load Index, which is a numerical code correlating to the maximum load
carrying capacity of the tire and (2) the Ply Rating (an additional
means vehicle manufacturers use to properly select tires for a
particular application (abbreviated on the tires as ``PR'')).
NHTSA agrees that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety in this case because the information intended to be
conveyed by the missing Load Range letter is communicated by other
means on the tires, specifically:
1. The Ply Rating stamped on the sidewall of the subject tires
correctly correlates to the Load Range designation/Ply Rating
Equivalency table listed by The Tire and Rim Association Inc. (TRA)
2013 book. Furthermore, the Load Range listed in the table is also
correctly associated to the Tire Size of the subject tires.
2. The service index or Load Index stamped on the sidewall of the
subject tires, which provides another means for a customer to properly
select a tire for a particular application, also correctly correlates
to the Load Index listed by The Tire and Rim Association Inc. (TRA)
2013 book for the subject tires.
3. The maximum load and maximum pressure stamped on the sidewall of
the subject tires correctly correlates to the maximum loads and
pressures listed by The Tire and Rim Association Inc. (TRA) 2013 book.
Finally, the tires are designed to meet all other applicable
requirements of FMVSS No. 119.
NHTSA Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that CMA and DCHL have met their burden of persuasion that the
FMVSS No. 119 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, CMA and DCHL's petition is hereby granted and CMA and DCHL
are exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a
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
[[Page 78564]]
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, any decision on this petition only applies to the subject
tires that CMA and DCHL no longer controlled at the time it determined
that the noncompliance existed. However, the granting of this petition
does not relieve CMA and DCHL 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 CMA and DCHL 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,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-30486 Filed 12-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
