Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 20482-20483 [2012-8050]
Download as PDF
20482
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Notices
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
4. Unloaded and Fully Loaded—500
ft., wet Jennite, 30 mph, Braking-in-acurve tests (ABS Failure Modes).
The results were inconclusive.
Noncompliant configurations performed
better than compliant configurations
during some stops and not as good as
compliant configurations during other
stops. Link attributed the confounding
results to variability in the friction level
of the wet Jennite surface during the
tests.
Summary and Conclusion
The vehicle manufacturer installed
faulty ABS modulator valves on the
front steer axle of subject vehicles. The
faulty valves were not manufactured
within engineering specifications and
do not rapidly release pressurized air
from brake chambers as required.
Laboratory test data results and analyses
submitted by the vehicle manufacturer
demonstrate the following:
1. When simulating severe braking
events which require ABS activation,
noncompliant vehicles would meet the
pneumatic time requirement because
pressurized air in the brake chamber
quickly exhausts through the valve via
ports controlled by ABS modulators.
2. There is no significant difference in
stopping distances of noncompliant
vehicles when compared to compliant
vehicles during 60 mph panic stops.
3. There is no significant difference in
stopping distances or vehicle stability of
noncompliant vehicles when compared
to compliant vehicles during 30 mph
braking-in-a-curve tests.
4. There is no significant rise in brake
lining temperatures of noncompliant
vehicles when compared to compliant
vehicles during repeated brake stops at
30–70 psi application pressures.
NHTSA has concluded that the test
data results and analyses are sufficient
to grant the petition for the specific
conditions that cause the subject
vehicles to be out of compliance with
the standard’s pneumatic release time
requirement.
NHTSA emphasizes that in the case of
the subject vehicles, only the failure of
the release timing to meet the exact
timing requirement for the brakes
mounted on the steer axles of the
subject truck tractors is at issue. The
release timing requirements for the
drive axles and for the trailer brake
control line output coupling of the
subject vehicles were not affected by
this noncompliance and were not
considered under this grant. NHTSA
considers brake release timing to be an
important element of FMVSS No. 121
requirements, because in the event a
non-ABS trailer is being towed, the
driver is able to quickly release the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Apr 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
brakes of any locked wheels to restore
vehicle control and maintain yaw
stability. Also, the release timing
requirements ensure that brakes on
certain axles of a vehicle combination
(steer, drive, or trailer) do not
excessively drag such that during
repeated brake applications they
become overly heated. The subject
petition is granted solely on the
demonstration by petitioner, comparing
compliant and noncompliant vehicles,
that the noncompliance in the subject
vehicles does not create a significant
safety risk. It is important that all other
vehicles subject to these requirements
continue to meet them.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA concludes that VTN and MTI
have provided sufficient information to
indicate that the subject FMVSS No. 121
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, VTN
and MTI’s petition is granted and the
petitioner is exempted from the
obligation of providing notification of,
and a remedy for, the subject
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
vehicles that VTN and MTI no longer
controlled at the time that they
determined that a noncompliance
existed in the subject vehicles.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
Delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and
501.8.
Issued on: March 28, 2012.
Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2012–8000 Filed 4–3–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
Bridgestone Americas Tire
Operations, LLC, (Bridgestone),1 has
determined that certain Firestone
Transforce AT, size LT265/70R17, light
truck replacement tires manufactured
between November 20, 2011 and
December 10, 2011, do not fully comply
with paragraph S5.5(d) of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for
Light Vehicles. Bridgestone has filed an
appropriate report dated January 9,
2012, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49
CFR part 556), Bridgestone 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.
This notice of receipt of Bridgestone’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.
Tires Involved: Affected are
approximately 467 Firestone brand
Transforce AT, size LT265/70R17, light
truck replacement tires manufactured
between November 20, 2011 and
December 10, 2011, at the Bridgestone
Canada, Inc., plant located in Uoliette,
Quebec, Canada and imported into the
United States by Bridgestone.
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,
these provisions only apply to the 467 2
tires that Bridgestone no longer
controlled at the time that it determined
that a noncompliance existed in the
subject tires.
Noncompliance: Bridgestone explains
that the noncompliance is that the
SUMMARY:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0025; Notice 1]
Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations,
LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Receipt of Petition.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1 Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC
(Bridgestone), is a Delaware corporation that
manufactures and imports replacement equipment.
2 Bridgestone’s petition, which was filed under 49
CFR part 556, requests an agency decision to
exempt Bridgestone as a replacement equipment
manufacturer from the notification and recall
responsibilities of 49 CFR Part 573 for 467 of the
affected tires. However, a decision on this petition
will not relieve tire distributors and dealers of the
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, introduction
or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant tires under their
control after Bridgestone notified them that the
subject noncompliance existed.
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Notices
sidewall marking on the intended
outboard sidewall of the subject tires
describes the maximum load in
kilograms incorrectly. Specifically, the
tires in question were inadvertently
marked with a maximum load of 1350
kg. The labeling should have read 1320
kg.
Rule text: Paragraph S5.5(d) of
FMVSS No. 139 require in pertinent
part:
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
S5.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in
paragraphs (a) through (i) of S5.5, each tire
must be marked on each sidewall with the
information specified in S5.5(a) through (d)
and on one sidewall with the information
specified in S5.5(e) through (i) according to
the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this
standard. The markings must be placed
between the maximum section width and the
bead on at least one sidewall, unless the
maximum section width of the tire is located
in an area that 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, those markings must
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 must be in letters and numerals not
less than 0.078 inches high and raised above
or sunk below the tire surface not less than
0.015 inches * * *
(d) The maximum load rating and for LT
tires, the letter designating the tire load
range; * * *
Summary of Bridgestone’s Analysis and
Arguments
Bridgestone explains that while the
noncompliant tires are mislabeled; the
tires do in fact have the correct marking
for the maximum load in pounds on the
intended outboard sidewall, and the
maximum load marking in both pounds
and kg is correct on the intended
inboard sidewall. The tires also meet or
exceed all other applicable FMVSS.
Bridgestone argues that the subject
mismarking is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety and is
unlikely to have an adverse impact on
motor vehicle safety since the actual
performance of the subject tires will not
be affected by the mismarking.
Bridgestone supports this belief by
stating that the tires met the
performance requirements of FMVSS
No. 139 for endurance and high speed
when tested at the 1350 kg load.
Bridgestone also points out its belief
that NHTSA has previously granted
similar petitions for non-compliances in
sidewall marking.
In summation, Bridgestone believes
that the described noncompliance of its
tires to meet the requirements of FMVSS
No. 139 is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety, and that its petition, to
exempt from providing recall
notification of noncompliance as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Apr 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
remedying the recall noncompliance as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be
granted.
Comments: 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:
a. 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.
b. By hand delivery 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.
c. Electronically: by logging onto the
Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at https://
www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Comments may also be faxed to 1–202–
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, selfaddressed postcard with the comments.
Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to https://
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
https://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.
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20483
Comment closing date: May 4, 2012.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and
501.8.
Issued on: March 29, 2012.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012–8050 Filed 4–3–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2011–0083; Notice 1]
Michelin North America, Inc., Receipt
of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Receipt of Petition.
AGENCY:
Michelin North America,
Inc.1 (MNA) has determined that certain
Michelin brand passenger car
replacement tires, do not fully comply
with paragraph S5.5 2 of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
139, New pneumatic radial tires for light
vehicles. MNA has filed an appropriate
report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports (dated June
2, 2011).
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49
CFR part 556), MNA 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.
This notice of receipt of MNA’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.
Tires involved: Affected are
approximately 17,500 Michelin Primacy
MXV4 TL passenger car replacement
tires labeled as sizes P205 65 R15 94H,
P205 65 R15 94V, and P225 55 R17 97H
that were manufactured by SC Michelin
Romania SA in Victoria, Romania
between January 9, 2011 and May 28,
2011.
SUMMARY:
1 Michelin North America, Inc. is a New York
corporation that manufactures and imports motor
vehicle replacement equipment.
2 In its petition MNA states its belief that the
subject tires do not meet the load marking
requirements of 49 CFR 571.139 S5.5(d). However,
the actual noncompliance is due to an error in the
tire size designation marking required by 49 CFR
571.139 S5.5(b) which causes the load marking to
appear to be incorrect.
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20482-20483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8050]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0025; Notice 1]
Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Receipt of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Receipt of Petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, (Bridgestone),\1\
has determined that certain Firestone Transforce AT, size LT265/70R17,
light truck replacement tires manufactured between November 20, 2011
and December 10, 2011, do not fully comply with paragraph S5.5(d) of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic
Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Bridgestone has filed an appropriate
report dated January 9, 2012, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC (Bridgestone), is
a Delaware corporation that manufactures and imports replacement
equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), Bridgestone 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.
This notice of receipt of Bridgestone'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.
Tires Involved: Affected are approximately 467 Firestone brand
Transforce AT, size LT265/70R17, light truck replacement tires
manufactured between November 20, 2011 and December 10, 2011, at the
Bridgestone Canada, Inc., plant located in Uoliette, Quebec, Canada and
imported into the United States by Bridgestone.
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, these provisions
only apply to the 467 \2\ tires that Bridgestone no longer controlled
at the time that it determined that a noncompliance existed in the
subject tires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Bridgestone's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR part
556, requests an agency decision to exempt Bridgestone as a
replacement equipment manufacturer from the notification and recall
responsibilities of 49 CFR Part 573 for 467 of the affected tires.
However, a decision on this petition will not relieve tire
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after
Bridgestone notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noncompliance: Bridgestone explains that the noncompliance is that
the
[[Page 20483]]
sidewall marking on the intended outboard sidewall of the subject tires
describes the maximum load in kilograms incorrectly. Specifically, the
tires in question were inadvertently marked with a maximum load of 1350
kg. The labeling should have read 1320 kg.
Rule text: Paragraph S5.5(d) of FMVSS No. 139 require in pertinent
part:
S5.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in paragraphs (a)
through (i) of S5.5, each tire must be marked on each sidewall with
the information specified in S5.5(a) through (d) and on one sidewall
with the information specified in S5.5(e) through (i) according to
the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this standard. The markings
must be placed between the maximum section width and the bead on at
least one sidewall, unless the maximum section width of the tire is
located in an area that 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, those markings must 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 must be in
letters and numerals not less than 0.078 inches high and raised
above or sunk below the tire surface not less than 0.015 inches * *
*
(d) The maximum load rating and for LT tires, the letter
designating the tire load range; * * *
Summary of Bridgestone's Analysis and Arguments
Bridgestone explains that while the noncompliant tires are
mislabeled; the tires do in fact have the correct marking for the
maximum load in pounds on the intended outboard sidewall, and the
maximum load marking in both pounds and kg is correct on the intended
inboard sidewall. The tires also meet or exceed all other applicable
FMVSS.
Bridgestone argues that the subject mismarking is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety and is unlikely to have an
adverse impact on motor vehicle safety since the actual performance of
the subject tires will not be affected by the mismarking. Bridgestone
supports this belief by stating that the tires met the performance
requirements of FMVSS No. 139 for endurance and high speed when tested
at the 1350 kg load.
Bridgestone also points out its belief that NHTSA has previously
granted similar petitions for non-compliances in sidewall marking.
In summation, Bridgestone believes that the described noncompliance
of its tires to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 139 is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to
exempt 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.
Comments: 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:
a. 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.
b. By hand delivery 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.
c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed
to 1-202-493-2251.
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 https://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 https://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.
Comment closing date: May 4, 2012.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: March 29, 2012.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012-8050 Filed 4-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P