20482 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Notices 

1Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC 

(Bridgestone), is a Delaware corporation that 

manufactures and imports replacement equipment. 

2Bridgestone’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. 

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 

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 

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. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Notices 20483 

1Michelin 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. 

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 http:// 

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 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. 

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 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Receipt of Petition. 

SUMMARY: 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. 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES