Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 35357-35358 [2013-13924]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Notices
vehicle owner’s manuals and labels
warn against placing infants, children
and CRSs in the front seat, and NASS
data bears out that small children and
CRSs are placed in the front less than
one percent of the time. More
importantly, GM has conducted more
than 10,000 tests confirming that the air
bag system in over 93 percent of the
subject vehicles will properly
characterize occupants and CRSs, so
that the air bag will or will not be
suppressed, as appropriate. With respect
to the remaining vehicles, the air bag
system was enabled or disabled, as
desired, over 99.8 percent of the time in
GM’s testing. Even so, the chance that
a CRS would be installed in the front
seat for the first time, at the same time
that the noncompliance occurred,
would be even more remote.
GM has additionally informed
NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future
production vehicles will comply with
FMVSS No. 208.
In summation, GM believes that the
described noncompliance of its vehicles
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.
Background Requirements: Section
§ 19 of FMVSS No. 208 specifically
states:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
§ 19 Requirements to provide protection
for infants in rear facing and convertible
child restraints and car beds.
§ 19.1 Each vehicle certified as complying
with § 14 shall, at the option of the
manufacturer, meet the requirements
specified in § 19.2 or § 19.3, under the test
procedures specified in § 20.
§ 19.2 Option 1—Automatic suppression
feature. Each vehicle shall meet the
requirements specified in § 19.2.1 through
§ 19.2.3. . . .
§ 19.2.2 The vehicle shall be equipped
with at least one telltale which emits light
whenever the passenger air bag system is
deactivated and does not emit light whenever
the passenger air bag system is activated,
except that the telltale(s) need not illuminate
when the passenger seat is unoccupied. Each
telltale: . . .
(h) The telltale must not emit light except
when the passenger air bag is turned off or
during a bulb check upon vehicle starting.
NHTSA Decision: NHTSA has
reviewed and accepts GM’s analyses
that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
GM explained that the front passenger
classification and air bag suppression
system complies with the safety
performance requirements of the
standard except under a very specific
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:32 Jun 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
and rare set of conditions that can occur
during an ignition cycle and cause the
front passenger air bag OFF telltale to
remain illuminated. When this occurs,
the telltale is the only part of the system
affected and the occupant classification
system will continue to operate as
designed and will enable or disable the
air bag as intended. As of May 14, 2013,
no consumer complaints related to this
condition were received by NHTSA for
the subject vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA has decided that GM met its
burden of persuasion that the FMVSS
No. 208 noncompliance with respect to
the front passenger air bag suppression
status telltale lamp described in GM’s
Noncompliance Information Report is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, GM’s petition is hereby
granted and the GM is 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
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 47,554
subject vehicles that GM determined
were noncompliant.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8.
Issued On: June 3, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013–13928 Filed 6–11–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0025; Notice 2]
Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations,
LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, DOT.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
PO 00000
Grant of Petition.
Frm 00119
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35357
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 § 5.5(d) of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for
Light Vehicles. Bridgestone has filed an
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports, dated
January 9, 2012.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and the rule implementing
those provisions 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. Notice of receipt of
the petition was published, with a 30day public comment period, on April 4,
2012 in the Federal Register (77 FR
20482). No comments were received. To
view the petition and all supporting
documents log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Web site
at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2012–
0025.’’
For
further information on this decision
contact Mr. Jack Chern, Office of
Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), telephone (202) 366–0661,
facsimile (202) 366–7002.
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.
Summary of Bridgstone’s Analysis
and Arguments: Bridgestone explains
that the noncompliance is that the
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.
Bridgestone stated its belief that the
subject noncompliance is
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
1 Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC is a
Delaware corporation that manufactures and
imports replacement equipment.
E:\FR\FM\12JNN1.SGM
12JNN1
35358
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Notices
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety
for the following reasons:
1. 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.
2. 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.
Bridgestone has additionally informed
NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future
production tires will comply with
FMVSS No. 139.
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Requirement Background:
§ 5.5 Tire markings. Except as
specified in paragraphs (a) through (i) of
§ 5.5, each tire must be marked on each
sidewall with the information specified
in § 5.5(a) through (d) and on one
sidewall with the information specified
in § 5.5(e) through (i) according to the
phase-in schedule specified in § 7 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* * *
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:14 Jun 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
(d) The maximum load rating and for LT
tires, the letter designating the tire load
range;* * *
NHTSA’S Analysis and Decision:
NHTSA believes the true measure of
inconsequentiality with respect to the
noncompliance with FMVSS No. 139
paragraph § 5.5(d), is whether a
consumer and/or retailer who relied on
the incorrect information could
experience a safety problem.
In the case of this noncompliance, the
subject tires are primarily sold in the
domestic replacement market, where the
load in pounds would be the
predominant consumer unit of
measurement. Thus, making the rated
maximum load value marked in English
units and overstated in metric unit’s
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
NHTSA has conducted a series of
focus groups as required by the TREAD
Act, to examine consumer perceptions
and understanding of tire labeling. A
few of the focus group participants had
knowledge of tire labeling beyond the
tire brand name, tire size, and tire
pressure. Since FMVSS No. 139 applies
to tires sold in the U.S., and since
consumers in the U.S. overwhelmingly
rely on units of English measure for
loading information, the safety issue
associated with overloading tires as a
result of the noncompliance is very
small.
NHTSA has reviewed and accepts
Bridgestone’s analyses that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. Bridgestone has
provided sufficient documentation that
the sidewall mismarkings do comply
with all other safety performance
requirements of the standard, except the
sidewall mismarking.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA has determined that
Bridgestone has met its burden of
persuasion that the subject FMVSS No.
139 sidewall marking noncompliance in
the tires identified in Bridgestone’s
Noncompliance Information Report is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Bridgestone’s petition is
granted and Bridgestone is 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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
decision only applies to approximately
467 tires that Bridgestone no longer
controlled at the time that it determined
that a noncompliance existed in the
subject tires. However, the granting of
this petition does not relieve 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 tires under their
control after Bridgestone 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.
Issued On: June 5, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013–13924 Filed 6–11–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
June 6, 2013.
The Department of the Treasury will
submit the following information
collection request to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and clearance in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, Public Law 104–13, on or after the
date of publication of this notice.
DATES: Comments should be received on
or before July 12, 2013 to be assured of
consideration.
ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding
the burden estimate, or any other aspect
of the information collection, including
suggestion for reducing the burden, to
(1) Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for
Treasury, New Executive Office
Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC
20503, or email at
OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV and
(2) Treasury PRA Clearance Officer,
1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite
8140, Washington, DC 20220, or email
at PRA@treasury.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Copies of the submission(s) may be
obtained by calling (202) 927–5331,
email at PRA@treasury.gov, or the entire
information collection request maybe
found at www.reginfo.gov.
Office of Financial Stability
OMB Number: 1505–0216.
Type of Review: Extension without
change of a currently approved
collection.
E:\FR\FM\12JNN1.SGM
12JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35357-35358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13924]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0025; Notice 2]
Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Grant 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 Sec. 5.5(d)
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic
Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Bridgestone has filed an appropriate
report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports, dated January 9, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC is a Delaware
corporation that manufactures and imports replacement equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions 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. Notice of
receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day public comment
period, on April 4, 2012 in the Federal Register (77 FR 20482). No
comments were received. To view the petition and all supporting
documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site
at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search
instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2012-0025.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on this
decision contact Mr. Jack Chern, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone
(202) 366-0661, facsimile (202) 366-7002.
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.
Summary of Bridgstone's Analysis and Arguments: Bridgestone
explains that the noncompliance is that the 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.
Bridgestone stated its belief that the subject noncompliance is
[[Page 35358]]
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:
1. 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.
2. 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.
Bridgestone has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected
the noncompliance so that all future production tires will comply with
FMVSS No. 139.
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.
Requirement Background:
Sec. 5.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in paragraphs (a)
through (i) of Sec. 5.5, each tire must be marked on each sidewall
with the information specified in Sec. 5.5(a) through (d) and on one
sidewall with the information specified in Sec. 5.5(e) through (i)
according to the phase-in schedule specified in Sec. 7 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;* * *
NHTSA'S Analysis and Decision: NHTSA believes the true measure of
inconsequentiality with respect to the noncompliance with FMVSS No. 139
paragraph Sec. 5.5(d), is whether a consumer and/or retailer who
relied on the incorrect information could experience a safety problem.
In the case of this noncompliance, the subject tires are primarily
sold in the domestic replacement market, where the load in pounds would
be the predominant consumer unit of measurement. Thus, making the rated
maximum load value marked in English units and overstated in metric
unit's inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
NHTSA has conducted a series of focus groups as required by the
TREAD Act, to examine consumer perceptions and understanding of tire
labeling. A few of the focus group participants had knowledge of tire
labeling beyond the tire brand name, tire size, and tire pressure.
Since FMVSS No. 139 applies to tires sold in the U.S., and since
consumers in the U.S. overwhelmingly rely on units of English measure
for loading information, the safety issue associated with overloading
tires as a result of the noncompliance is very small.
NHTSA has reviewed and accepts Bridgestone's analyses that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Bridgestone
has provided sufficient documentation that the sidewall mismarkings do
comply with all other safety performance requirements of the standard,
except the sidewall mismarking.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has determined that
Bridgestone has met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No.
139 sidewall marking noncompliance in the tires identified in
Bridgestone's Noncompliance Information Report is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Bridgestone's petition is granted
and Bridgestone is 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 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 approximately 467 tires that Bridgestone no longer
controlled at the time that it determined that a noncompliance existed
in the subject tires. However, the granting of this petition does not
relieve 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 tires under their control after
Bridgestone 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.
Issued On: June 5, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-13924 Filed 6-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
