[Federal Register: January 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 6)]
[Notices]
[Page 1262-1264]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10ja07-93]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25555; Notice 2]
Foreign Tire Sales, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
Foreign Tire Sales, Inc. (FTS) has determined that certain tires
that it
[[Page 1263]]
imported in 2005 and 2006 do not comply with S6.5(d) of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, ``New Pneumatic Tires For
Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.'' FTS has filed an appropriate
report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.'' Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h), FTS also has petitioned for a determination that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Notice of
receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day comment period, on
August 8, 2006 in the Federal Register (71 FR 45105). NHTSA received
two comments on the petition, one from the Rubber Manufacturers
Association (RMA) and another from Flexi-Van Leasing, Inc. (Flexi-Van).
To view the petition and all supporting documents and comments
submitted, go to: http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm and
enter Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25555.
Affected are a total of approximately 18,900 Danzig and Direction
size 10.00-20 bias-ply container chassis tires manufactured by Wendeng
Sanfeng Tyre Co., Ltd. of Wendeng City, China (Wendeng), and imported
by FTS between August 2005 and April 2006. Paragraph S6.5(d) of FMVSS
No. 119 requires that each tire shall be marked on each sidewall with
``[t]he maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure of the
tire * * *.'' The subject tires are not marked with the maximum load
rating and corresponding inflation values for single tire use. FTS has
corrected the problem that caused these errors so that they will not be
repeated in future production.
As discussed in its petition, FTS believes that the noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective
action is warranted. FTS stated that there is no safety issue relating
to single-use applications because the tires are clearly labeled ``DUAL
USE ONLY'' and ``TRAILER SERVICE ONLY,'' and because FTS's ``customers
understand that said tires are to be used on container chassis only.''
FTS supplemented its petition with additional information, which has
been placed in the docket, including a September 7, 2006 letter from
the tire manufacturer which states:
Please be advised that we know of no safety issues involving our
container chassis tires which are labeled for dual use only. There
is no change in the construction of the tire whether the tire is
labeled for dual use only or for single and dual use.
One public comment the agency received was from Flexi-Van, which is
a lessor of intermodal container chassis. In carrying out its leasing
business, Flexi-Van purchases tires of the type that are the subject of
this petition, including tires imported by FTS. Flexi-Van stated that
it has purchased over two thousand of the subject tires, which have
already been installed on Flexi-Van chassis The company commented that
an in-field chassis inspection of each container chassis it leases
would be required to identify the noncompliant tires, which the company
says is a difficult and burdensome proposition. Flexi-Van acknowledged
that it would not have to bear the cost of this inspection since this
is the responsibility of the vendor, but nonetheless argued that denial
of this petition and the subsequent recall ``would result in a
tremendous administrative and logistical burden to our customers, and
inconvenience to Flexi-Van as well.'' The commenter further stated
that, based on its experience in the industry, it is extremely unlikely
that the subject intermodal tires would be installed in a single-use
position, such as on the drive or steer axle of a truck tractor. Flexi-
Van explained that, for these reasons, it supports granting FTS's
petition for decision of inconsequential noncompliance.
The second public comment was from the Rubber Manufacturers
Association, and it urged NHTSA to deny the subject petition, stating:
While Petitioner may not intend its non-compliant tires to be
used `anywhere other than a container chassis,' there is no
guarantee that the tires may not eventually be placed in a single
load application. Indeed, the rationale for requiring the sidewall
to be marked with maximum load ratings and inflation values for
single and dual applications under FMVSS 119 is precisely that the
same tire could be used in either application * * * [T]he issue that
should be dispositive of this position is whether the tires
otherwise meet the performance standards of FMVSS 119. There is,
however, no evidence in the docket that the subject tires meet the
long-term endurance and strength standards of FMVSS 119 (S6).
[emphasis in original]
Agency Decision
NHTSA has carefully reviewed the petition and public comments, and
the agency has determined that the noncompliance at issue is not
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, for the reasons that follow.
Even though FTS may intend that its 18,900 tires with noncompliant
markings be used on trailers and for dual use only, and provides
instructions to that effect, stating that the ``tires set forth * * *
are for DUAL USE ONLY and TRAILER SERVICE ONLY,'' NHTSA agrees with the
comments of RMA that, despite manufacturer instructions to the
contrary, there is no guarantee these tires may not eventually be
placed on a single-load application, since the tires are capable of
being mounted and used in that manner.
Use of one of the subject tires in a single-load application could
lead to confusion, because the consumer would not be presented with the
relevant information regarding the load-pressure relationship suitable
for such application. In turn, this situation could lead to possible
overloading of the tire, because the operator would be forced to
attempt to independently calculate the maximum load rating for the tire
in a single-load application. Specifically, without the required
marking, the consumer would not know which of the seven permissible
international tire industry publications or the manufacturer's own data
submissions were used to calculate a single-load application and
certify the tire under FMVSS No. 119, S5.1. Given that fleet operators
have an economic incentive to fully load their vehicles with cargo, the
agency believes that adverse safety consequences could be associated
with failure to include the relevant tire markings required under
Standard No. 119. That is why the standard specifically requires tire
markings for both single-load and dual-load applications. The standard
does not provide manufacturers the option of marking tires with a
statement limiting them to only one application and providing only one
maximum load rating. FTS's arguments regarding the ability of the tires
to support vehicle load in a single-load application do not resolve
this problem.
FTS supports its petition with information that was received by the
agency under two cover letters, both available in the docket. The first
letter, dated September 22, 2006, encloses information from the Chinese
tire manufacturer, including an ``Endurance Test Report'' dated October
25, 2005, a ``Plunger Energy Test Report'' dated October 25, 2005, and
two copies of a letter dated September 7, 2006 and stamped with the
corporate seal (one in Chinese and other with an English translation).
The second letter, dated September 29, 2006, encloses further
information from the foreign tire manufacturer, including an
``Endurance Test Report'' dated August 10, 2006 and a ``Plunger Energy
Test Report'' dated August 26, 2006. This information is apparently
intended to demonstrate that the tires are generally safe,
notwithstanding the labeling error.
[[Page 1264]]
However, these reports do not demonstrate that the tires meet the
performance standards of FMVSS No. 119. Moreover, the issue here is not
whether the tires meet those performance requirements. Rather, the
question is whether the incorrect marking of the tires may itself have
safety consequences.
In addition, we note that Flexi-Van, in its comments, describes how
it mounts tires onto its trailers and explains the difficulty in
locating the tires in the field should a recall be required. It also
asserts its belief that for the approximately 2,000 subject tires it
purchased, ``it is virtually impossible, in the ordinary course of
business, that one of the subject intermodal tires would be installed
on the drive or steer axle of a truck tractor.'' However, Flexi-Van's
comments pertain to only a small portion of the subject tires and, in
any event, do not negate the fact that these tires can be mounted and
used in an unintended application. Accordingly, it is possible that
some of these tires could be used in a single-load application, so the
absence of correct markings pertinent to that application may have
negative safety consequences.
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.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at CFR
1.50 and 501.8)
Issued on: January 4, 2007.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E7-114 Filed 1-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P