Foreign Tire Sales, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Foreign Tire Sales
|
Nancy Lummen Lewis
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
November 27, 2013
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71032-71033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28461]
[[Page 71032]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0063; Notice 2]
Foreign Tire Sales, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of Petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Foreign Tire Sales, Inc. (FTS), as importer for ProMeter brand
medium truck radial replacement tires manufactured by Shandlong
Linglong Rubber Company Limited, has determined that certain
replacement tires manufactured during the period between the 15th week
of 2008 and 22nd week of 2009 do not fully comply with paragraph
S6.5(d) of 49 CFR 571.119, 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. FTS has
filed an appropriate report dated June 11, 2009, pursuant to 49 CFR
Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision, contact Mr.
Abraham Diaz, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5310.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FTS's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the
regulation implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, FTS has
petitioned 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 FTS's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on June 8, 2010, in the Federal Register (75 FR
32536). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System Web
site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search
instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2010-0063.''
Tires Involved: Affected are approximately 2,659 size 285/75R-24.5
14 ply (steer and drive) and 295/75R-22.5 14 ply (steer and drive)
ProMeter brand medium truck radial tires manufactured during the period
between the 15th week of 2008 and 22nd week of 2009 with DOT Numbers:
285/75R-24.5--OU4CFTS1508-0U4CFT2209 and 295/75R-22.5--OU34FTS1508-
0U34FTS2209.
Summary of FTS'S Analysis: FTS stated that it believed that 100% of
the 2,659 tires involved contained the identified non-compliance. FTS
says it sold these tires to eleven customers who are distributors.
Three of the eleven distributors have not sold any of these tires to
their customers.
In a supplemental letter dated April 14, 2010, FTS submitted
corrections of typographical errors in its petition and stated that
subsequent to submitting its petition it had decided to remedy all of
the subject tires that it held in its possession as well as those that
had not been sold by its customers (the eleven tire distributors). FTS
also revised its estimate of the number of affected tires to 2,000,
which encompasses tires that had been sold and not retrieved for
remedy. Therefore, it is only those 2,000 tires for which FTS is
requesting exemption from the notification and remedy requirements
because it claims that the remaining 659 tires have been remedied.
FTS describes the noncompliance as its failure to provide accurate
load and inflation information as required by FMVSS No. 119. The
maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure that are
erroneously marked on the FTS tires and the correct information for the
non-conforming tires are as follows:
295/75R22.5/14 is marked:
Max. Load Single 2800 kg (6175 lbs) at 720 kPa (105 psi) cold.
Max. Load Dual 2650 kg (5840 lbs) at 720 kPa (105 psi) cold.
295/75R22.5/14 should be marked:
Max. Load Single 2800 kg (6175 lbs) at 760 kPa (110 psi) cold.
Max. Load Dual 2575 kg (5675 lbs) at 760 kPa (110 psi) cold.
285/75R24.5/14 is marked:
Max. Load Single 3000 kg (6610 lbs) at 720 kPa (105 psi) cold.
Max. Load Dual 2725 kg (6005 lbs) at 720 kPa (105 psi) cold.
285/75R24.5/14 should be marked:
Max. Load Single 2800 kg (6175 lbs) at 760 kPa (110 psi) cold.
Max. Load Dual 2575 kg (5675 lbs) at 760 kPa (110 psi) cold.
FTS states that the non-compliance of its tires was brought to its
attention on June 9, 2009, ``when new molds were ordered and the old
molds were compared to the new molds.''
FTS also states that it has advised the manufacturer to hold any
additional non-conforming tires and to change the inaccurate
information on the tires before exporting them to the United States.
FTS argues that the inaccurate markings on the tires are
inconsequential because the difference between the proper load ranges
and inflation pressures are minimal. FTS bases its conclusion on its
testing of the subject tires using the inaccurate information noted on
its tires, and FTS asserts that the tires ``greatly exceed all FMVSS
testing result requirements.'' Specifically, FTS points out that it
subjected the tested tires to a modified FMVSS No. 119 endurance test
which it states ``is far more demanding than the requirements of FMVSS
119.''
FTS submitted with its application for exemption from notification
and remedy requirements a copy of eight endurance test reports,
originally written in Chinese, and the English translation of those
reports. FTS states that ``These tests performed using the load
inflation information which appears on the subject tires clearly
indicates that even at the wrong inflation pressure, these tires
greatly exceed FMVSS 119 and are safe.'' FTS additionally states that
``the mislabeling of the tires poses absolutely no safety issue since
even if a user of the tires inflates the tire to the load inflation
pressure contained on the side wall of the subject tire, we know that
the tire greatly exceeds all requirements (i.e. the tires ran almost
three times longer than required by FMVSS 119 at loads increased by 10%
every ten hours (nine times over 130 hours)).''
In summation, FTS requests that NHTSA deem this issue as
``incidental mislabeling'' as it has no bearing on the safety of the
tires, therefore requests that FTS's petition, to exempt FTS from
providing recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30118 and remedy the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30120, should be granted.
Parts in Pertinent
Requirements Background
Paragraph S6.5(d) 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
[[Page 71033]]
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
than 0.4 mm (0.015 inch), except that the marking depth shall be not
less than 0.25mm (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
* * * * *
(d) The maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure
of the tire, shown as follows:
(Mark on tires rated for single and dual load): max load single
------kg (------lb) at ------kPa (------psi) cold. Max load dual --
----kg (------lb) at ------kPa (------psi) cold.
(Mark on tires rated only for single load): Max load ------kg
(------lb) at ------kPa (------psi) cold.
NHTSA'S Analysis of FTS'S Reasoning: Foreign Tire Sales (FTS)
acknowledges that the subject tires are marked with a maximum load
rating higher than the intended correct value and a corresponding
inflation pressure lower than the intended correct value, but contends
that the tires are safe for use based on additional tests conducted at
the incorrectly marked inflation pressure and at loads greater than the
incorrectly marked maximum load rating. The maximum load rating and
corresponding inflation pressure that are erroneously marked on the
subject FTS tires, size 295/75R22.5/14 and 285/75R24.5/14 and of the
correct information for the non-comforming tires as follows: For the
subject 295/75R22.5/14 tires, they are marked Max. Load Single 2800 kg
(6175 lbs) at 720 kPa (105 psi) cold and Max. Load Dual 2650 kg (5840
LBS) at 720 kPa (105 psi) Cold. The correct labeling for these tires
are: Max. Load Single 2800 kg (6175 lbs) at 760 kPa (110 psi) Cold and
Max. Load Dual 2575 kg (5675 lbs) at 760 kPa (110 psi) cold. For the
subject 285/75R24.5/14 tires, they are marked Max. Load Single 3000 kg
(6610 lbs) at 720 kPa (105 psi) cold and Max. Load Dual 2725 kg (6005
lbs) at 720 kpa (105 psi) cold. The correct labeling for these tires
are: Max. Load Single 2800 kg (6175 lbs) at 760 kpa (110 psi) cold and
Max. Load Dual 2575 kg (5675 lbs) at 760 kpa (110 psi) cold.
The additional testing conducted by FTS on the subject tires to
support its basis that the tires are safe for use consisted of eight
(8) modified FMVSS No. 119 tests, in which the tires were tested at the
incorrectly marked inflation pressure and at loads increased by 10%
every ten hours of testing up to almost three times longer than that
required by FMVSS No. 119. FTS argues that the inaccurate markings on
the subject tires are inconsequential because the difference between
the proper load ranges and inflation pressures are minimal. FTS further
argues that based on its modified FMVSS No. 119 testing, even if a user
of the subject tires inflates the tire to the load inflation pressure
as marked on the sidewall of the subject tires, the tires greatly
exceed FMVSS No. 119 and are safe.
The Agency does not agree with FTS that the noncompliance of the
subject tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The Agency
does not consider the difference between the marked load ranges and
inflation pressures of the subject tires as compared to the proper
marking of load ranges and inflation pressures to be minimal. For
example, due to the improper tire marking, the maximum load rating
(single) for the subject 285/75R24.5/14 tires is over-rated by 435 lbs
and the maximum load rating (dual) for the subject 295/75R22.5/14 tires
is over-rated by 165 lbs. Overloading can result in handling or
steering problems, brake failure, and tire failure. An under-inflated
tire is also a safety concern since the greater the under-inflation,
the more the sidewalls of a tire can flex, which increases the internal
heat generated and makes the tire more susceptible to failure.
In addition, the Agency does not consider eight (8) additional
FMVSS No. 119 endurance tests, even as conducted by FTS with increasing
loads and test durations, an adequate basis to support that the subject
tires are safe for use as improperly marked. The maximum load ratings
and inflation pressures as erroneously marked on the subject tires are
outside the intended safe operating limits of the tires as designed for
manufacture and proper use. The subject tires as improperly marked
indicate a maximum load rating value above that designed for the tire,
along with an inflation pressure lower than that designed for the tire.
A tire loaded above its designed maximum load rating at a corresponding
inflation pressure below the value for which the tire was designed
creates a compounding safety problem which clearly impacts the defined
purpose of FMVSS No. 119, which includes placing ``the correct
information on tires to permit the proper selection and use, and safe
operation of the tire''.
NHTSA Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that the petitioner has not met its burden of persuasion that
the noncompliance described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, FTS's petition is hereby denied, and the petitioner must
notify owners, purchasers and dealers pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
provide a remedy in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30120.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Dated: November 21, 2013.
Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2013-28461 Filed 11-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P