Document ID: NHTSA-2012-0025-0002
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petitions for Decisions of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC
Posted Date: 2012-04-04T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20482-20483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8050]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0025; Notice 1]

Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Receipt of Petition 
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Receipt of Petition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, (Bridgestone),\1\ 
has determined that certain Firestone Transforce AT, size LT265/70R17, 
light truck replacement tires manufactured between November 20, 2011 
and December 10, 2011, do not fully comply with paragraph S5.5(d) of 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic 
Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Bridgestone has filed an appropriate 
report dated January 9, 2012, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and 
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC (Bridgestone), is 
a Delaware corporation that manufactures and imports replacement 
equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule 
at 49 CFR part 556), Bridgestone has petitioned for an exemption from 
the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on 
the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle 
safety.
    This notice of receipt of Bridgestone's petition is published under 
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or 
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    Tires Involved: Affected are approximately 467 Firestone brand 
Transforce AT, size LT265/70R17, light truck replacement tires 
manufactured between November 20, 2011 and December 10, 2011, at the 
Bridgestone Canada, Inc., plant located in Uoliette, Quebec, Canada and 
imported into the United States by Bridgestone.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a 
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers 
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, 
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance 
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, these provisions 
only apply to the 467 \2\ tires that Bridgestone no longer controlled 
at the time that it determined that a noncompliance existed in the 
subject tires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Bridgestone's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR part 
556, requests an agency decision to exempt Bridgestone as a 
replacement equipment manufacturer from the notification and recall 
responsibilities of 49 CFR Part 573 for 467 of the affected tires. 
However, a decision on this petition will not relieve tire 
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for 
sale, introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate 
commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after 
Bridgestone notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Noncompliance: Bridgestone explains that the noncompliance is that 
the

[[Page 20483]]

sidewall marking on the intended outboard sidewall of the subject tires 
describes the maximum load in kilograms incorrectly. Specifically, the 
tires in question were inadvertently marked with a maximum load of 1350 
kg. The labeling should have read 1320 kg.
    Rule text: Paragraph S5.5(d) of FMVSS No. 139 require in pertinent 
part:

    S5.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in paragraphs (a) 
through (i) of S5.5, each tire must be marked on each sidewall with 
the information specified in S5.5(a) through (d) and on one sidewall 
with the information specified in S5.5(e) through (i) according to 
the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this standard. The markings 
must be placed between the maximum section width and the bead on at 
least one sidewall, unless the maximum section width of the tire is 
located in an area that is not more than one-fourth of the distance 
from the bead to the shoulder of the tire. If the maximum section 
width falls within that area, those markings must appear between the 
bead and a point one-half the distance from the bead to the shoulder 
of the tire, on at least one sidewall. The markings must be in 
letters and numerals not less than 0.078 inches high and raised 
above or sunk below the tire surface not less than 0.015 inches * * 
*
    (d) The maximum load rating and for LT tires, the letter 
designating the tire load range; * * *

Summary of Bridgestone's Analysis and Arguments

    Bridgestone explains that while the noncompliant tires are 
mislabeled; the tires do in fact have the correct marking for the 
maximum load in pounds on the intended outboard sidewall, and the 
maximum load marking in both pounds and kg is correct on the intended 
inboard sidewall. The tires also meet or exceed all other applicable 
FMVSS.
    Bridgestone argues that the subject mismarking is inconsequential 
as it relates to motor vehicle safety and is unlikely to have an 
adverse impact on motor vehicle safety since the actual performance of 
the subject tires will not be affected by the mismarking. Bridgestone 
supports this belief by stating that the tires met the performance 
requirements of FMVSS No. 139 for endurance and high speed when tested 
at the 1350 kg load.
    Bridgestone also points out its belief that NHTSA has previously 
granted similar petitions for non-compliances in sidewall marking.
    In summation, Bridgestone believes that the described noncompliance 
of its tires to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 139 is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to 
exempt from providing recall notification of noncompliance as required 
by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as required 
by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
    Comments: Interested persons are invited to submit written data, 
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the 
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be 
submitted by any of the following methods:
    a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on 
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays.
    c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management 
System (FDMS) Web site at 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, self-addressed 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