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

Topics:  Double Coin, Dynatrac

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
December 30, 2014

[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: http://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