Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2017 / Notices 53561 

sulfate desiccated PSDI–5 driver-side 

airbag inflators in February 2016, and 

over seventeen months later only about 

400 covered Ford inflators have been 

tested. Moreover, the number of 

inflators tested under Ford’s program 

was less than half the number tested 

under Nissan’s program, and about 

seven percent of the approximately 

6,000 inflators Ford now proposes to 

test in only about seven months. 

It is difficult to reconcile Ford’s 

ambitious plan with its prior approach 

toward evaluating the safety of the 

covered inflators. Ford has provided no 

compelling argument for the Agency to 

deviate from 49 CFR 556.4(b)(5). 

For these reasons, NHTSA denies 

Mazda’s request for a deferral of 

NHTSA’s decision on Mazda’s Petition. 

The Agency will decide on Mazda’s 

Petition without consideration of Ford’s 

planned additional efforts. Nevertheless, 

NHTSA recognizes Ford’s plans to 

further evaluate the safety of Takata 

calcium-sulfate desiccated PSDI–5 

driver-side airbag inflators, and 

encourages Ford to move forward with 

those plans as described—particularly 

given the concern about these inflators 

that Ford has expressed. 

Accordingly, NHTSA hereby gives 

notice of its receipt of Mazda Motor 

Corporation Petition for a Determination 

of Inconsequentiality of Takata’s Defect 

Information Report filing under NHTSA 

Campaign Number 17E–034 for PSDI–5 

Desiccated Driver Air Bag Inflators. And 

it is hereby ordered that: 

1. The period for public comment on 

Mazda’s Petition shall run from the 

publication of this decision through 

December 18, 2017; and 

2. Mazda’s request for a deferral of 

NHTSA’s decision on its Petition, so 

that Ford may complete its intensified 

and expanded inflator field study, aging 

assessment, and testing on additional 

samples, is denied. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., 30118, 

30120(h), 30162, 30166(b)(1), 30166(g)(1); 

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95(a); 49 

CFR parts 556, 573, 577. 

Issued: November 9, 2017. 

Stephen P. Wood, 

Acting Chief Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2017–24833 Filed 11–15–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2017–0093; Notice 1] 

Ford Motor Company, Receipt of 

Petition for Inconsequentiality and 

Decision Denying Request for Deferral 

of Determination 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition; 

notice of receipt of request for deferral, 

and of decision denying request for 

deferral. 

SUMMARY: On July 10, 2017, Takata 

Corporation (‘‘Takata’’) filed a defect 

information report (‘‘DIR’’) in which it 

determined that a safety-related defect 

exists in certain phase-stabilized 

ammonium nitrate (‘‘PSAN’’) driver-side 

airbag inflators that it manufactured 

with a calcium sulfate desiccant, 

including inflators that it supplied to 

Ford Motor Company (‘‘Ford’’), Mazda 

North American Operations (‘‘Mazda’’), 

and Nissan North America Inc. 

(‘‘Nissan’’) for use in certain vehicles. 

Ford has petitioned the Agency for a 

decision that, because analysis of 

inflators installed in certain Ford 

vehicles does not demonstrate 

propellant-tablet density degradation or 

increased inflation pressure, and 

because there are design differences 

between the inflators installed in Ford 

vehicles and an inflator variant installed 

in Nissan vehicles, the equipment defect 

determined to exist by Takata is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety in the Ford vehicles 

affected by Takata’s DIR. Ford requests 

relief from its notification and remedy 

obligations under the National Traffic 

and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 

and its applicable regulations, and 

further requests that the Agency allow 

Ford until March 31, 2018 to complete 

certain analysis and testing before the 

Agency decides on the petition. 

DATES: The closing date for comments is 

December 18, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written data, views, 

and arguments regarding this petition 

for inconsequentiality. Comments must 

refer to the docket and notice number 

cited in the title of this notice and be 

submitted by one of the following 

methods: 

• Internet: Go to http://

www.regulations.gov and follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12– 

140, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, 

Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

• Facsimile: (202) 493–2251. 

You may call the Docket at (202) 366– 

9324. 

Note that all comments received will 

be posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Thus, 

submitting such information makes it 

public. You may wish to read the 

Privacy Act notice, which can be 

viewed by clicking on the ‘‘Privacy and 

Security Notice’’ link in the footer of 

http://www.regulations.gov. 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 above will be filed in the 

docket and will be considered. 

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 also be published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to the authority 

indicated at the end of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

legal issues: Stephen Hench, Office of 

the Chief Counsel, NCC–100, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 

366–5263). 

For general information regarding 

NHTSA’s investigation into Takata 

airbag inflator ruptures and the related 

recalls, visit https://www.nhtsa.gov/ 

recall-spotlight/takata-air-bags. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On November 3, 2015, NHTSA issued, 

and Takata agreed to, a Consent Order 

setting forth penalties, requirements, 

and performance obligations in 

connection with Takata’s alleged failure 

to fully comply with the National 

Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 

1966 as amended and recodified (the 

‘‘Safety Act’’), 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., 

and its applicable regulations. Under 

the Consent Order, Takata is required to 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
53562 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2017 / Notices 

1Later, under Paragraph 43 of the Third 

Amendment to the Coordinated Remedy Order 

(‘‘ACRO’’), NHTSA ordered each vehicle 

manufacturer ‘‘with any vehicle in its fleet 

equipped with a desiccated PSAN Takata inflator’’ 

(and not using or planning to use such an inflator 

as a final remedy) to develop a written plan 

describing ‘‘plans to confirm the safety and/or 

service life’’ of desiccated PSAN Takata inflators 

used in its fleet. ACRO ¶ 43. Such plans were to 

include coordination with Takata for parts recovery 

from fleet vehicles, testing, and anticipated/future 

plans ‘‘to develop or expand recovery and testing 

protocols of the desiccated PSAN inflators.’’ Id. 

2Under 49 CFR 573.5(a), a vehicle manufacturer 

is responsible for any safety-related defect 

determined to exist in any item of original 

equipment. See also 49 U.S.C. 30102(b)(1)(C). 

3Ford also suggests differences in ‘‘vehicle 

environment,’’ between affected Ford and Nissan 

vehicles as a potential explanation for inflator 

degradation-risk differences between the covered 

Ford inflators and the covered Nissan inflators. See 

Petition at 2. However, Ford does not elaborate on 

this suggestion elsewhere in its Petition. See id. at 

14–16 (focusing on design differences between the 

covered Ford inflators and covered Nissan 

inflators). 

4Twenty of these inflators were from salvage 

yards, however, ‘‘where the conditions used to store 

the parts cannot be determined.’’ Id. at 11. 

5 In its DIR, Nissan provides this 895 figure; in its 

Petition, Ford attributes ‘‘approximately 1,000’’ 

covered inflators to Nissan’s program. Compare 

Recall No. 17V–449 with Petition at 11. 

test its phase-stabilized ammonium 

nitrate (‘‘PSAN’’) inflators that contain a 

desiccant (a drying agent) in 

cooperation with vehicle manufacturers 

‘‘to determine the service life and safety 

of such inflators and to determine 

whether, and to what extent, these 

inflator types suffer from a defect 

condition, regardless of whether it is the 

same or similar to the conditions at 

issue’’ in the Defect Information Reports 

(‘‘DIRs’’) Takata had filed for its nondesiccated PSAN inflators. Consent 

Order ¶ 28. 

In February 2016, NHTSA requested 

Ford’s assistance in evaluating Takata 

calcium-sulfate desiccated PSDI–5 

driver-side airbag inflators, to which 

Ford agreed. In June 2016, Ford and 

Takata began a field-recovery program 

to evaluate Takata calcium-sulfate 

desiccated PSDI–5 driver-side airbag 

inflators that were original equipment in 

MY 2007–2008 Ford Ranger vehicles in 

Florida, Michigan, and Arizona. See 

also Recall No. 17E–034.1 Nissan also 

initiated a similar field-recovery 

program for its Versa vehicles in March 

2016. Recall No. 17V–449. By January 

2017, a very limited number of samples 

from Ford were available and tested. 

Recall No. 17E–034. In March 2017, 

Takata and Ford met to review the field 

data collected from the inflators 

returned by Ford and Nissan. Recall No. 

17E–034. Between March and June 

2017, additional Ford inflators were 

subjected to live dissection, which 

included chemical and dimensional 

propellant analyses, and ballistic 

testing. Recall No. 17E–034. Also in 

June, Takata reviewed with Ford and 

NHTSA field-return data from Ford 

inflators. Recall No. 17E–034. Ford then 

met with NHTSA on July 6, 2017 to 

discuss the data collected to date, as 

well as an expansion plan for evaluating 

Takata calcium-sulfate desiccated PSDI– 

5 driver-side airbag inflators. 

Takata has analyzed over 400 such 

inflators from the Ford program—as 

well as 895 such inflators from the 

Nissan program. See Recall No. 17V– 

449. After a review of field-return data, 

on July 10, 2017, Takata, determining a 

safety-related defect exists, filed a DIR 

for calcium-sulfate desiccated PSDI–5 

driver-side airbag inflators that were 

produced from January 1, 2005 to 

December 31, 2012 and installed as 

original equipment on certain motor 

vehicles manufactured by Ford (the 

‘‘covered Ford inflators’’), as well as 

calcium-sulfate desiccated PSDI–5 

driver-side airbag inflators for those 

same years of production installed as 

original equipment on motor vehicles 

manufactured by Nissan (the ‘‘covered 

Nissan inflators’’) and Mazda (the 

‘‘covered Mazda inflators’’) 

(collectively, the ‘‘covered inflators’’). 

Recall No. 17E–034. 

Takata’s DIR filing triggered Ford’s 

obligation to file a DIR for its affected 

vehicles. See 49 CFR part 573; 

November 3, 2015 Coordinated Remedy 

Order ¶¶ 45–46.2 Ford filed a 

corresponding DIR, informing NHTSA it 

intended to file a petition for 

inconsequentiality. Ford Petition for a 

Determination of Inconsequentiality and 

Request for Deferral of Determination 

Regarding Certain Ford Vehicles 

Equipped with Takata PSDI–5 

Desiccated Driver Airbag Inflators 

(August 16, 2017) (‘‘Petition’’) (cover 

letter). Ford then petitioned the Agency, 

under 49 U.S.C. 30118(d), 30120(h), and 

49 CFR part 556, for a decision that, 

because Takata’s analysis of the covered 

Ford inflators does not show propellant 

tablet-density degradation, or increased 

inflation pressure, and certain inflator 

design differences exist between the 

covered Ford inflators and the covered 

Nissan inflators, the equipment defect 

determined to exist by Takata is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety in the Ford vehicles 

affected by Takata’s DIR. Id. at 1, 11– 

16.3 In addition, citing its commitment 

to further investigation, Ford stated it is 

expanding its acquisition, testing and 

analysis of the covered Ford inflators, 

and requested the Agency allow Ford 

until March 31, 2018 to complete 

certain testing and analysis before 

deciding on the Petition. Id. at 16–20. 

II. Classes of Motor Vehicles Involved 

Ford’s Petition involves 

approximately 3.04 million light 

vehicles that contain the covered Ford 

inflators. These vehicles are: 

• Ford Ranger (MY 2007–2011) 

• Ford Fusion (MY 2006–2012) 

• Lincoln Zephyr/MKZ (MY 2006– 

2012) 

• Mercury Milan (MY 2006–2011) 

• Ford Edge (MY 2007–2010) 

• Lincoln MKX (MY 2007–2010) 

Id. (cover letter). 

III. Summary of Ford’s Petition 

Ford argues that Takata’s DIR does not 

determine the covered Ford inflators 

‘‘actually contain a defect at this time, 

or that they will develop one over 

time,’’ and that once Ford completes its 

engineering analysis (by the end of 

March 2018), it will be able to 

supplement or amend its Petition to 

‘‘allow the Agency to make a 

determination’’ on its Petition. See id. at 

10, 19. In the interim, Ford states that 

it will continue to obtain permanent 

replacement driver-side airbag inflators 

so that its continuing analysis will not 

affect the availability of parts if a 

remedy is needed. Id. 

Ford’s position that the defect is 

inconsequential rests on two related 

arguments. First, in contrast to testing 

data pertaining to the covered Nissan 

inflators, Ford contends Takata’s 

analysis of the covered Ford inflators 

does not show propellant-tablet density 

degradation or increased inflation 

pressure. Id. at 11. Takata has analyzed 

over 1,300 of its calcium-sulfate 

desiccated PSDI–5 driver-side airbag 

inflators, which include approximately 

423 inflators from Ford Ranger 

vehicles 4 and 895 inflators from Nissan 

Versa vehicles.5 Such analysis involved 

both live inflator dissections and 

ballistic testing. Id. Ford asserts that 

about 360 live dissections of inflators 

obtained as part of Ford’s field-recovery 

program demonstrate ‘‘consistent 

inflator output performance’’— 

specifically, measurements of ignitiontablet discoloration, generate density, 

and moisture content of certain inflator 

constituents did not indicate a 

reduction-in-density trend. Id. at 11–12. 

Ford further contends that these 

observations are supported by 47 

ballistic deployment tests that showed 

no inflator exceeding the production 

primary-chamber pressure 

specifications. Id. at 12–13. Ford also 

emphasizes that Takata has not 

observed pressure vessel ruptures or 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2017 / Notices 53563 

6Ford’s Petition explicitly lists six vehicle lines, 

comprising all affected Ford models except for the 

Fusion. See Petition at 17. However, one of the six 

vehicle lines is simply listed as ‘‘2006–2007 MY 

Ford.’’ Presumably, this refers to certain MY Ford 

Fusions. 

pressure excursions on any desiccated 

PSDI–5 inflator, and that ‘‘[t]he 

maximum primary chamber pressure 

that Takata measured’’ in covered Ford 

inflators was about 15 MPa lower than 

that measured in a covered Nissan 

inflator (which exhibited primary 

chamber pressure exceeding 60 MPa). 

Id. at 14. 

Second, and relatedly, Ford contends 

‘‘[t]here are design differences’’ in the 

covered Ford inflators when compared 

to the covered Nissan inflators, and that 

such differences may explain 

differences observed between the two 

inflator variants during testing. Id. In 

short, Ford cites its inflator variant as 

having ‘‘fewer potential moisture 

sources’’ because the inflators contain 

only two, foil-wrapped auto-ignition 

tablets (instead of three that are not foilwrapped), contain divider disk foil tape, 

and utilize certain EPDM generate 

cushion material (instead of ceramic) 

that ‘‘reduces generate movement over 

time, maintains generate integrity, and 

leads to consistent and predictable burn 

rates.’’ Id. at 15–16 (providing table). 

The remainder of Ford’s Petition 

explains its ‘‘commit[ment] to further 

investigation of PSDI–5 airbag 

inflators.’’ See id. at 16–18. Because of 

this stated concern, including about 

data pertaining to the covered Nissan 

inflators, ‘‘Ford is expanding the scope 

of the sampling and is involving leading 

industry experts to assess any potential 

risks from desiccated PSDI–5 inflators 

in Ford products.’’ Id. at 16. Ford 

outlines a two-pronged plan for this 

expansion. First, Ford describes a partsacquisition program ‘‘to gather 

approximately 6,000 desiccated PSDI–5 

driver airbag inflators’’ from certain 

model year vehicles in areas with high 

absolute humidity for what appears to 

be all vehicle lines in which the covered 

inflators were originally installed.6 Id. at 

17. And second, Ford describes a 

continuation of inflator testing and 

engineering analysis, which will engage 

third-party experts for independent 

assessments. Id. at 17–18. The testing 

will include various engineering 

analyses (comparisons of design within 

the PSDI–5 family, statistical 

assessments, and ballistic modeling), 

inflator testing (CT scanning and 

inflator disassembly), and propellant 

testing (moisture content, closed-bomb 

burn rate, X-ray micro-computer 

tomography, thermogravimetric/ 

differential scanning calorimetry 

analysis). Id. 

IV. Request for Deferral of 

Determination 

Ford has requested that NHTSA allow 

it additional time before deciding on its 

Petition—specifically, until March 31, 

2018—so that it may ‘‘complete its 

intensified and expanded inflator field 

study, aging assessment, and testing on 

additional samples and vehicle types to 

evaluate the performance of the Takata 

desiccated PSDI–5 driver airbag 

inflators.’’ Id. at 19. In making this 

request, Ford appears to acknowledge 

the available data may not yet be 

sufficient for the Agency to grant its 

Petition. Indeed, Ford notes that while 

its results to date are ‘‘good news for the 

safety’’ of users of one of its six affected 

vehicle models—the Ranger—‘‘the 

results on the Nissan design inflators are 

of concern.’’ Id. 

The Agency recognizes Ford’s plans 

to expand its investigation and to secure 

a supply of remedy inflators for affected 

vehicles if it becomes needed. See id. at 

3, 10. However, 49 CFR 556.4(b)(5) 

provides that an inconsequentiality 

petition must set forth all data, views, 

and arguments supporting that petition, 

and Ford does not adequately justify 

why this provision does not preclude 

deferral here. 

Specifically, NHTSA does not find 

Ford’s request for deferral reasonable 

under the circumstances or supported 

by the testing and data it has collected 

to date. Indeed, Ford does not provide 

an explanation for why it has not 

already undertaken the expansive 

investigation it now proposes, and 

Ford’s past efforts to evaluate the safety 

of the covered inflators do not support 

granting a deferral. NHTSA requested 

Ford’s assistance in evaluating Takata 

calcium-sulfate desiccated PSDI–5 

driver-side airbag inflators in February 

2016, and over seventeen months later 

only about 400 covered Ford inflators 

have been tested. Further, while the 

covered Ford inflators were original 

equipment in six vehicle models 

(Ranger, Fusion, MKZ, Milan, Edge, and 

MKX), all approximately 400 inflators 

harvested in Ford’s field-recovery 

program were from the same vehicle 

model (the Ranger). Moreover, the 

number of inflators tested under Ford’s 

program was less than half the number 

tested under Nissan’s program, and 

about seven percent of the 

approximately 6,000 inflators Ford now 

proposes to test in only about seven 

months. 

It is difficult to reconcile Ford’s 

ambitious plan with its prior approach 

toward evaluating the safety of the 

covered inflators. Ford has provided no 

compelling argument for the Agency to 

deviate from 49 CFR 556.4(b)(5). 

For these reasons, NHTSA denies 

Ford’s request for a deferral of the 

NHTSA’s decision on Ford’s Petition. 

The Agency will decide on Ford’s 

Petition without consideration of Ford’s 

planned additional efforts as outlined in 

its Petition. Nevertheless, NHTSA 

recognizes Ford’s plans to further 

evaluate the safety of Takata calciumsulfate desiccated PSDI–5 driver-side 

airbag inflators, and encourages Ford to 

move forward with those plans as 

described in its Petition—particularly 

given the concern about these inflators 

that Ford has expressed. 

Accordingly, NHTSA hereby gives 

notice of its receipt of Ford’s Petition for 

a Determination of Inconsequentiality 

and Request for Deferral of 

Determination Regarding Certain Ford 

Vehicles Equipped with Takata PSDI–5 

Desiccated Driver Airbag Inflators. And 

it is hereby Ordered that: 

1. The period for public comment on 

Ford’s Petition shall run from the 

publication of this decision through 

December 18, 2017; and 

2. Ford’s request for a deferral of 

NHTSA’s decision on Ford’s Petition, so 

that Ford may complete its intensified 

and expanded inflator field study, aging 

assessment, and testing on additional 

samples and vehicle types, is Denied. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., 30118, 

30120(h), 30162, 30166(b)(1), 30166(g)(1); 

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95(a); 49 

CFR parts 556, 573, 577. 

Issued: November 9, 2017. 

Stephen P. Wood, 

Acting Chief Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2017–24829 Filed 11–15–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

[OST Docket No. DOT–OST–2010–0140] 

Notice of Submission of Proposed 

Information Collection to OMB 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as 

amended, this notice announces the 

Department of Transportation’s 

(Department) intention to reinstate an 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number for the collection 

and posting of certain aviation 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES