China Manufacturers Alliance, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
September 15, 2014

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 178 (Monday, September 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55068-55069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21883]



[[Page 55068]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0083; Notice 1]


China Manufacturers Alliance, LLC, Receipt of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt 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.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is October 15, 
2014.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data, 
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the 
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be 
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to: U.S. Department 
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Deliver: Deliver comments by hand to: U.S. Department 
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The 
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except 
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: logging 
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater 
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of 
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in 
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish 
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please 
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that 
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the 
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online 
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act 
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received 
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will 
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials 
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be 
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or 
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal 
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    I. CMA and DCHL's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 
30120(h) (see implementing rule 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.
    This notice of receipt of CMA and DCHL's petition is published 
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency 
decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the 
petition.
    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 0.25mm (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. . . .
    (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

[[Page 55069]]

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 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, any decision on 
this petition only applies to the subject replacement tires that CMA 
and DCHL no longer controlled at the time that it determined that the 
noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not 
relieve replacement tire distributors and dealers of the prohibitions 
on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for 
introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant replacement 
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. 2014-21883 Filed 9-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P