53558 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2017 / Notices 

equivalent to the level of safety 

achieved without the exemption. 

The renewal outlined in this notice 

extends the exemption from August 12, 

2017 through August 12, 2022, and 

requests public comment. The 

exemption will be valid for 5 years 

unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The 

exemption will be rescinded if: (1) 

Motor carriers and/or commercial motor 

vehicles fail to comply with the terms 

and conditions of the exemption; (2) the 

exemption has resulted in a lower level 

of safety than was maintained before it 

was granted; or (3) continuation of the 

exemption would not be consistent with 

the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 

31136(e) and 31315. 

Preemption 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 

31313(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 

381.600, during the period this 

exemption is in effect, no State shall 

enforce any law or regulation applicable 

to interstate commerce that conflicts 

with or is inconsistent with this 

exemption with respect to a firm or 

person operating under the exemption. 

States may, but are not required to, 

adopt the same exemption with respect 

to operations in intrastate commerce. 

Request for Comments 

FMCSA requests comments from 

parties with data concerning the safety 

record of motor carriers operating Model 

Year 2015 Ford-manufactured Transit 

based CMVs, and corresponding future 

Transit-based models of the same design 

in accordance with the conditions of the 

exemption. The Agency will evaluate 

adverse evidence submitted during the 

comment period and at any time during 

the 5-year period of the exemption. If 

safety is being compromised or if 

continuation of the exemption would 

not be consistent with the goals and 

objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 

31315(b)(1), FMCSA will take 

immediate steps to revoke the Ford 

exemption. 

Issued on: November 8, 2017. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Associate Administrator for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2017–24826 Filed 11–15–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2017–0092; Notice 1] 

Mazda Motor Corporation, Receipt of 

Petition for 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 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. 

Mazda’s vehicles identified by Takata’s 

DIR were designed by Ford and were 

built on the same platform and using the 

same airbag inflators as the affected 

Ford vehicles. Mazda has petitioned the 

Agency—in part through a purported 

joint petition with Ford (see DOCKET 

NO. NHTSA–2017–0093)—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 

and Mazda 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 Mazda 

vehicles affected by Takata’s DIR. 

Mazda 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 defer a 

decision on the petition until March 31, 

2018 to allow Ford to complete certain 

analysis and testing. 

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: 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2017 / Notices 53559 

1Mazda has relied upon the Ford testing 

information because Mazda’s vehicles identified by 

Takata’s DIR were designed by Ford and were built 

on the same platform and using the same airbag 

inflators as the affected Ford vehicles. 

2Later, 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. 

3Under 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). 4Mazda appears to have inadvertently dated its 

letter August 17, 2016, instead of August 17, 2017. 5Ford also submitted a petition to the Agency, 

with a cover letter dated August 16, 2017. This 

petition was not a ‘‘joint petition’’ with Mazda. 

Ford’s petition is separately under consideration by 

the Agency. 

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 

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.1 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–034.2 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 Mazda’s 

obligation to file a DIR for its affected 

vehicles. See 49 CFR part 573; 

November 3, 2015 Coordinated Remedy 

Order ¶¶ 45–46.3 Mazda filed a 

corresponding DIR, informing NHTSA it 

intended to file a petition for 

inconsequentiality. Mazda Motor 

Corporation Petition for Determination 

of Inconsequentiality of Takata’s Defect 

Information Report filing under NHTSA 

Campaign Number 17E–034 for PSDI–5 

Desiccated Driver Air Bag Inflators 

(dated August 17, 2016) 4 (‘‘Petition’’) 

(enclosing ‘‘Mazda submission copy of 

Part 573’’). Mazda then petitioned the 

Agency, under 49 CFR part 556, via 

letter including an enclosed purported 

‘‘joint petition’’ with Ford,5 for a 

decision that the equipment defect 

determined to exist by Takata is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety in the Mazda vehicles 

affected by Takata’s DIR, and also 

requested NHTSA allow Ford until 

March 31, 2018 to complete an 

‘‘expanded inflator field study, aging 

assessment, and testing on additional 

samples’’ before NHTSA makes a 

decision on the Petition. Id. at 1. Mazda 

sent its Petition via UPS on August 17, 

2017, scheduled to arrive the following 

day via next-day air. However, because 

the Petition was incorrectly addressed, 

NHTSA did not receive this copy of the 

Petition until August 23, 2017. NHTSA 

did, however, receive a copy via email 

on August 22, 2017. 

II. Timeliness 

Under 49 CFR 556.4(c), Mazda was 

required to submit its Petition to 

NHTSA no later than thirty days after 

Mazda determined a defect exists. 

Mazda made the defect determination 

on July 18, 2017, which allowed it until 

August 17, 2017 to submit a petition to 

the Agency. See Mazda’s enclosed DIR; 

49 CFR 556.4(c). However, Mazda sent 

its Petition via UPS on August 17, 2017, 

with the Petition scheduled to arrive the 

following day. NHTSA first received 

Mazda’s Petition via email on August 

22, 2017—five days after it was due. 

Despite this procedural flaw, and with 

the public interest in mind, NHTSA 

acknowledges receipt of Mazda’s 

Petition, is publishing the relevant 

documents for public comment, and 

addresses Mazda’s request for the 

Agency to defer a decision on the 

Petition. NHTSA need not decide herein 

whether the timing of Mazda’s filing is 

fatal to its Petition—that issue is 

preserved for decision at a later date. 

III. Classes of Motor Vehicles Involved 

Mazda’s Petition involves 5,848 

vehicles in which the covered Mazda 

inflators were originally installed. 

Petition at 1. Those vehicles are MY 

2007–2009 B-Series pickup trucks, 

which Mazda explains were built on the 

same platform and using the same 

airbag inflators as Ford MY 2007–2011 

Rangers. Id. Accordingly, Mazda states 

that although ‘‘Takata has not tested 

PSDI–5 inflators with calcium sulfate 

from Mazda vehicles,’’ data from those 

Ford Rangers is representative of 

Mazda’s MY 2007–2009 B-Series 

vehicles. Id. 

IV. Summary of Mazda’s Petition 

In support of its Petition, Mazda 

largely refers NHTSA to the ‘‘joint 

petition’’ with Ford enclosed with 

Mazda’s letter. Id. Mazda’s Petition also 

provides a brief, bullet-point summary 

of certain arguments, including that data 

from Ford field-return parts does not 

show a propellant tablet-density 

degradation seen in field-return parts 

from Nissan; that pressure 

measurements in Ford inflator primary 

chambers during ballistic testing were 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
53560 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2017 / Notices 

6Twenty of these inflators were from salvage 

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

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

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

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

covered inflators to Nissan’s program. Compare 

Recall 17V–449 with Petition at 11. 

8Ford’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. 

within specification and there were no 

reports of pressure vessel ruptures in 

PSDI–5 inflators the field; and that 

desiccant saturation is not an indicator 

of propellant degradation. Id. at 2–3. 

In the ‘‘joint petition’’ enclosed with 

Mazda’s letter, 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 

Enclosure 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 in the ‘‘joint petition’’ 

is 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 calciumsulfate desiccated PSDI–5 driver-side 

airbag inflators, which include 

approximately 423 inflators from Ford 

Ranger vehicles 6 and 895 inflators from 

Nissan Versa vehicles.7 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 

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 the ‘‘joint petition’’ 

enclosed with Mazda’s letter explains 

Ford’s ‘‘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.8 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. 

V. Request for Deferral of 

Determination 

Mazda requests in its letter that, ‘‘in 

conjunction with [its] joint petition 

filing with’’ Ford, NHTSA allow Mazda 

additional time before deciding on its 

Petition—specifically, until March 31, 

2018—so Ford may ‘‘complete its 

expanded inflator field study, aging 

assessment, and testing on additional 

samples.’’ Petition at 1. Mazda also 

refers to ‘‘Ford’s commitment to further 

investigation of PSDI–5 inflators 

through additional parts acquisitions as 

well as continued testing and 

engineering analysis.’’ Id. at 3. Mazda 

does not make any additional reference 

to its deferral request in its letter, but 

does refer NHTSA to its enclosed 

‘‘joint’’ petition’’ with Ford, in which 

Ford further discusses this deferral 

request (on its own behalf). See id. 

Assuming, arguendo, that the 

explanation therein applies equally to 

Mazda, NHTSA must deny Mazda’s 

request for deferral. 

In the ‘‘joint petition,’’ Ford makes the 

same request for a deferral as Mazda, so 

that it (Ford) 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.’’ See Enclosure 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 Mazda (through Ford, arguendo) 

does not adequately justify why this 

provision does not preclude deferral 

here. 

Specifically, NHTSA does not find the 

request for deferral reasonable under the 

circumstances or supported by the 

testing and data 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 calciumVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Nov 15, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16NON1.SGM 16NON1

asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
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