82 FR 53558 - 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
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 220 (November 16, 2017)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 220 (November 16, 2017)
| Page Range | 53558-53561 | |
| FR Document | 2017-24833 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 220 (Thursday, November 16, 2017)] [Notices] [Pages 53558-53561] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-24833] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: [[Page 53559]] 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 non-desiccated 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Mazda 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. \2\ Later, 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ Under 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). \4\ Mazda appears to have inadvertently dated its letter August 17, 2016, instead of August 17, 2017. \5\ Ford 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [[Page 53560]] 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 calcium-sulfate 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 ignition-tablet 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ Twenty 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 foil- wrapped), 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 parts-acquisition 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ Ford'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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 calcium- [[Page 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
![53558 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2017 / Notices
equivalent to the level of safety DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
achieved without the exemption. invited to submit written data, views,
National Highway Traffic Safety and arguments regarding this petition
The renewal outlined in this notice
Administration for inconsequentiality. Comments must
extends the exemption from August 12,
2017 through August 12, 2022, and refer to the docket and notice number
[Docket No. NHTSA–2017–0092; Notice 1] cited in the title of this notice and be
requests public comment. The
submitted by one of the following
exemption will be valid for 5 years Mazda Motor Corporation, Receipt of
methods:
unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The Petition for Determination of
Inconsequentiality of Takata’s Defect • Internet: Go to http://
exemption will be rescinded if: (1)
Information Report Filing Under www.regulations.gov and follow the
Motor carriers and/or commercial motor online instructions for submitting
vehicles fail to comply with the terms NHTSA Campaign Number 17E–034 for
PSDI–5 Desiccated Driver Air Bag comments.
and conditions of the exemption; (2) the • Mail: Docket Management Facility,
exemption has resulted in a lower level Inflators and Decision Denying
Request for Deferral of Determination M–30, U.S. Department of
of safety than was maintained before it Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
was granted; or (3) continuation of the AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12–
exemption would not be consistent with Safety Administration (NHTSA), 140, Washington, DC 20590.
the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. Department of Transportation. • Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S.
31136(e) and 31315. ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition; Department of Transportation, 1200
Preemption notice of receipt of request for deferral New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building,
and of decision denying request for Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. deferral. between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time,
31313(d), as implemented by 49 CFR Monday through Friday, except Federal
381.600, during the period this SUMMARY: On July 10, 2017, Takata holidays.
exemption is in effect, no State shall Corporation (‘‘Takata’’) filed a defect • Facsimile: (202) 493–2251.
enforce any law or regulation applicable information report (‘‘DIR’’) in which it You may call the Docket at (202) 366–
determined that a safety-related defect 9324.
to interstate commerce that conflicts
exists in certain phase-stabilized Note that all comments received will
with or is inconsistent with this
ammonium nitrate (‘‘PSAN’’) driver-side be posted without change to http://
exemption with respect to a firm or
airbag inflators that it manufactured www.regulations.gov, including any
person operating under the exemption. with a calcium sulfate desiccant,
States may, but are not required to, personal information provided. Thus,
including inflators that it supplied to submitting such information makes it
adopt the same exemption with respect Ford Motor Company (‘‘Ford’’), Mazda
to operations in intrastate commerce. public. You may wish to read the
North American Operations (‘‘Mazda’’), Privacy Act notice, which can be
Request for Comments and Nissan North America Inc. viewed by clicking on the ‘‘Privacy and
(‘‘Nissan’’) for use in certain vehicles. Security Notice’’ link in the footer of
FMCSA requests comments from Mazda’s vehicles identified by Takata’s http://www.regulations.gov. DOT’s
parties with data concerning the safety DIR were designed by Ford and were complete Privacy Act Statement is
record of motor carriers operating Model built on the same platform and using the available for review in the Federal
Year 2015 Ford-manufactured Transit same airbag inflators as the affected Register published on April 11, 2000
based CMVs, and corresponding future Ford vehicles. Mazda has petitioned the (65 FR 19477–78).
Transit-based models of the same design Agency—in part through a purported
The petition, supporting materials,
in accordance with the conditions of the joint petition with Ford (see DOCKET
and all comments received before the
exemption. The Agency will evaluate NO. NHTSA–2017–0093)—for a
close of business on the closing date
adverse evidence submitted during the decision that because analysis of
indicated above will be filed in the
comment period and at any time during inflators installed in certain Ford
docket and will be considered.
the 5-year period of the exemption. If vehicles does not demonstrate
Comments and supporting materials
safety is being compromised or if propellant-tablet density degradation or
received after the closing date will also
increased inflation pressure, and
continuation of the exemption would be filed and will be considered to the
because there are design differences
not be consistent with the goals and extent possible. When the petition is
between the inflators installed in Ford
objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and granted or denied, notice of the decision
and Mazda vehicles and an inflator
31315(b)(1), FMCSA will take will also be published in the Federal
variant installed in Nissan vehicles, the
immediate steps to revoke the Ford Register pursuant to the authority
equipment defect determined to exist by
exemption. indicated at the end of this notice.
Takata is inconsequential as it relates to
Issued on: November 8, 2017. motor vehicle safety in the Mazda FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Larry W. Minor, vehicles affected by Takata’s DIR. For legal issues: Stephen Hench,
Mazda requests relief from its Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC–100,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
notification and remedy obligations National Highway Traffic Safety
[FR Doc. 2017–24826 Filed 11–15–17; 8:45 am] Administration, 1200 New Jersey
under the National Traffic and Motor
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and its Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
applicable regulations, and further (telephone: (202) 366–5263).
requests that the Agency defer a For general information regarding
decision on the petition until March 31, NHTSA’s investigation into Takata
2018 to allow Ford to complete certain airbag inflator ruptures and the related
analysis and testing. recalls, visit https://www.nhtsa.gov/
DATES: The closing date for comments is recall-spotlight/takata-air-bags.
December 18, 2017. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Nov 15, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16NON1.SGM 16NON1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_53778/page/1.svg)
![53560 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2017 / Notices
within specification and there were no inflator (which exhibited primary V. Request for Deferral of
reports of pressure vessel ruptures in chamber pressure exceeding 60 MPa). Determination
PSDI–5 inflators the field; and that Id. at 14. Mazda requests in its letter that, ‘‘in
desiccant saturation is not an indicator Second, and relatedly, Ford contends conjunction with [its] joint petition
of propellant degradation. Id. at 2–3. filing with’’ Ford, NHTSA allow Mazda
In the ‘‘joint petition’’ enclosed with ‘‘[t]here are design differences’’ in the
covered Ford inflators when compared additional time before deciding on its
Mazda’s letter, Ford argues that Takata’s
to the covered Nissan inflators, and that Petition—specifically, until March 31,
DIR does not determine the covered
such differences may explain 2018—so Ford may ‘‘complete its
Ford inflators ‘‘actually contain a defect
differences observed between the two expanded inflator field study, aging
at this time, or that they will develop
inflator variants during testing. Id. In assessment, and testing on additional
one over time,’’ and that once Ford
short, Ford cites its inflator variant as samples.’’ Petition at 1. Mazda also
completes its engineering analysis (by
having ‘‘fewer potential moisture refers to ‘‘Ford’s commitment to further
the end of March 2018), it will be able
to supplement or amend its Petition to sources’’ because the inflators contain investigation of PSDI–5 inflators
‘‘allow the Agency to make a only two, foil-wrapped auto-ignition through additional parts acquisitions as
determination’’ on its Petition. See well as continued testing and
tablets (instead of three that are not foil-
Enclosure at 10, 19. In the interim, Ford engineering analysis.’’ Id. at 3. Mazda
wrapped), contain divider disk foil tape,
states that it will continue to obtain does not make any additional reference
and utilize certain EPDM generate to its deferral request in its letter, but
permanent replacement driver-side cushion material (instead of ceramic)
airbag inflators so that its continuing does refer NHTSA to its enclosed
that ‘‘reduces generate movement over ‘‘joint’’ petition’’ with Ford, in which
analysis will not affect the availability time, maintains generate integrity, and
of parts if a remedy is needed. Id. Ford further discusses this deferral
leads to consistent and predictable burn request (on its own behalf). See id.
Ford’s position in the ‘‘joint petition’’
rates.’’ Id. at 15–16 (providing table). Assuming, arguendo, that the
is that the defect is inconsequential rests
on two related arguments. First, in The remainder of the ‘‘joint petition’’ explanation therein applies equally to
contrast to testing data pertaining to the enclosed with Mazda’s letter explains Mazda, NHTSA must deny Mazda’s
covered Nissan inflators, Ford contends Ford’s ‘‘commit[ment] to further request for deferral.
Takata’s analysis of the covered Ford investigation of PSDI–5 airbag In the ‘‘joint petition,’’ Ford makes the
inflators does not show propellant-tablet inflators.’’ See id. at 16–18. Because of same request for a deferral as Mazda, so
density degradation or increased this stated concern, including about that it (Ford) may ‘‘complete its
inflation pressure. Id. at 11. Takata has data pertaining to the covered Nissan intensified and expanded inflator field
analyzed over 1,300 of its calcium- inflators, ‘‘Ford is expanding the scope study, aging assessment, and testing on
sulfate desiccated PSDI–5 driver-side additional samples and vehicle types to
of the sampling and is involving leading
airbag inflators, which include evaluate the performance of the Takata
industry experts to assess any potential
approximately 423 inflators from Ford desiccated PSDI–5 driver airbag
risks from desiccated PSDI–5 inflators
Ranger vehicles 6 and 895 inflators from inflators.’’ See Enclosure at 19. In
in Ford products.’’ Id. at 16. Ford making this request, Ford appears to
Nissan Versa vehicles.7 Such analysis outlines a two-pronged plan for this
involved both live inflator dissections acknowledge the available data may not
expansion. First, Ford describes a parts- yet be sufficient for the Agency to grant
and ballistic testing. Id. Ford asserts that
acquisition program ‘‘to gather its petition. Indeed, Ford notes that
about 360 live dissections of inflators
obtained as part of Ford’s field-recovery approximately 6,000 desiccated PSDI–5 while its results to date are ‘‘good news
program demonstrate ‘‘consistent driver airbag inflators’’ from certain for the safety’’ of users of one of its six
inflator output performance’’— model year vehicles in areas with high affected vehicle models—the Ranger—
specifically, measurements of ignition- absolute humidity for what appears to ‘‘the results on the Nissan design
tablet discoloration, generate density, be all vehicle lines in which the covered inflators are of concern.’’ Id.
and moisture content of certain inflator inflators were originally installed.8 Id. at The Agency recognizes Ford’s plans
constituents did not indicate a 17. And second, Ford describes a to expand its investigation and to secure
reduction-in-density trend. Id. at 11–12. continuation of inflator testing and a supply of remedy inflators for affected
Ford further contends that these engineering analysis, which will engage vehicles if it becomes needed. See id. at
observations are supported by 47 third-party experts for independent 3, 10. However, 49 CFR 556.4(b)(5)
ballistic deployment tests that showed assessments. Id. at 17–18. The testing provides that an inconsequentiality
no inflator exceeding the production will include various engineering petition must set forth all data, views,
primary-chamber pressure analyses (comparisons of design within and arguments supporting that petition,
specifications. Id. at 12–13. Ford also the PSDI–5 family, statistical and Mazda (through Ford, arguendo)
emphasizes that Takata has not assessments, and ballistic modeling), does not adequately justify why this
observed pressure vessel ruptures or inflator testing (CT scanning and provision does not preclude deferral
pressure excursions on any desiccated inflator disassembly), and propellant here.
PSDI–5 inflator, and that ‘‘[t]he Specifically, NHTSA does not find the
testing (moisture content, closed-bomb
maximum primary chamber pressure request for deferral reasonable under the
burn rate, X-ray micro-computer circumstances or supported by the
that Takata measured’’ in covered Ford
tomography, thermogravimetric/
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
inflators was about 15 MPa lower than testing and data collected to date.
differential scanning calorimetry Indeed, Ford does not provide an
that measured in a covered Nissan
analysis). Id. explanation for why it has not already
6 Twenty of these inflators were from salvage undertaken the expansive investigation
8 Ford’s Petition explicitly lists six vehicle lines,
yards, however, ‘‘where the conditions used to store it now proposes, and Ford’s past efforts
the parts cannot be determined.’’ Id. at 11. comprising all affected Ford models except for the
to evaluate the safety of the covered
7 In its DIR, Nissan provides this 895 figure; in its Fusion. See Petition at 17. However, one of the six
Petition, Ford attributes ‘‘approximately 1,000’’ vehicle lines is simply listed as ‘‘2006–2007 MY inflators do not support granting a
covered inflators to Nissan’s program. Compare Ford.’’ Presumably, this refers to certain MY Ford deferral. NHTSA requested Ford’s
Recall 17V–449 with Petition at 11. Fusions. assistance in evaluating Takata calcium-
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Nov 15, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16NON1.SGM 16NON1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_53778/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2017 / Notices 53561
sulfate desiccated PSDI–5 driver-side DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • Mail: Docket Management Facility,
airbag inflators in February 2016, and M–30, U.S. Department of
over seventeen months later only about National Highway Traffic Safety Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
400 covered Ford inflators have been Administration Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12–
tested. Moreover, the number of 140, Washington, DC 20590.
[Docket No. NHTSA–2017–0093; Notice 1]
inflators tested under Ford’s program • Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S.
was less than half the number tested Ford Motor Company, Receipt of Department of Transportation, 1200
under Nissan’s program, and about Petition for Inconsequentiality and New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building,
seven percent of the approximately Decision Denying Request for Deferral Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590
6,000 inflators Ford now proposes to of Determination between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time,
test in only about seven months. Monday through Friday, except Federal
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic holidays.
It is difficult to reconcile Ford’s Safety Administration (NHTSA), • Facsimile: (202) 493–2251.
ambitious plan with its prior approach Department of Transportation. You may call the Docket at (202) 366–
toward evaluating the safety of the ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition; 9324.
covered inflators. Ford has provided no notice of receipt of request for deferral, Note that all comments received will
compelling argument for the Agency to and of decision denying request for be posted without change to http://
deviate from 49 CFR 556.4(b)(5). deferral. www.regulations.gov, including any
For these reasons, NHTSA denies personal information provided. Thus,
SUMMARY: On July 10, 2017, Takata submitting such information makes it
Mazda’s request for a deferral of
Corporation (‘‘Takata’’) filed a defect public. You may wish to read the
NHTSA’s decision on Mazda’s Petition.
information report (‘‘DIR’’) in which it Privacy Act notice, which can be
The Agency will decide on Mazda’s determined that a safety-related defect viewed by clicking on the ‘‘Privacy and
Petition without consideration of Ford’s exists in certain phase-stabilized Security Notice’’ link in the footer of
planned additional efforts. Nevertheless, ammonium nitrate (‘‘PSAN’’) driver-side http://www.regulations.gov. DOT’s
NHTSA recognizes Ford’s plans to airbag inflators that it manufactured complete Privacy Act Statement is
further evaluate the safety of Takata with a calcium sulfate desiccant, available for review in the Federal
calcium-sulfate desiccated PSDI–5 including inflators that it supplied to Register published on April 11, 2000
driver-side airbag inflators, and Ford Motor Company (‘‘Ford’’), Mazda (65 FR 19477–78).
encourages Ford to move forward with North American Operations (‘‘Mazda’’), The petition, supporting materials,
those plans as described—particularly and Nissan North America Inc. and all comments received before the
given the concern about these inflators (‘‘Nissan’’) for use in certain vehicles. close of business on the closing date
that Ford has expressed. Ford has petitioned the Agency for a indicated above will be filed in the
Accordingly, NHTSA hereby gives decision that, because analysis of docket and will be considered.
notice of its receipt of Mazda Motor inflators installed in certain Ford Comments and supporting materials
Corporation Petition for a Determination vehicles does not demonstrate received after the closing date will also
of Inconsequentiality of Takata’s Defect propellant-tablet density degradation or be filed and will be considered to the
increased inflation pressure, and extent possible. When the petition is
Information Report filing under NHTSA
because there are design differences granted or denied, notice of the decision
Campaign Number 17E–034 for PSDI–5
between the inflators installed in Ford will also be published in the Federal
Desiccated Driver Air Bag Inflators. And
vehicles and an inflator variant installed Register pursuant to the authority
it is hereby ordered that: in Nissan vehicles, the equipment defect indicated at the end of this notice.
1. The period for public comment on determined to exist by Takata is FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
Mazda’s Petition shall run from the inconsequential as it relates to motor legal issues: Stephen Hench, Office of
publication of this decision through vehicle safety in the Ford vehicles the Chief Counsel, NCC–100, National
December 18, 2017; and affected by Takata’s DIR. Ford requests Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
2. Mazda’s request for a deferral of relief from its notification and remedy 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
NHTSA’s decision on its Petition, so obligations under the National Traffic Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202)
that Ford may complete its intensified and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 366–5263).
and its applicable regulations, and For general information regarding
and expanded inflator field study, aging
further requests that the Agency allow NHTSA’s investigation into Takata
assessment, and testing on additional
Ford until March 31, 2018 to complete airbag inflator ruptures and the related
samples, is denied.
certain analysis and testing before the recalls, visit https://www.nhtsa.gov/
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., 30118, Agency decides on the petition. recall-spotlight/takata-air-bags.
30120(h), 30162, 30166(b)(1), 30166(g)(1); DATES: The closing date for comments is
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95(a); 49 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
December 18, 2017.
CFR parts 556, 573, 577. I. Background
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
Issued: November 9, 2017. invited to submit written data, views, On November 3, 2015, NHTSA issued,
Stephen P. Wood, and arguments regarding this petition and Takata agreed to, a Consent Order
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Acting Chief Counsel. for inconsequentiality. Comments must setting forth penalties, requirements,
[FR Doc. 2017–24833 Filed 11–15–17; 8:45 am] refer to the docket and notice number and performance obligations in
cited in the title of this notice and be connection with Takata’s alleged failure
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
submitted by one of the following to fully comply with the National
methods: Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of
• Internet: Go to http:// 1966 as amended and recodified (the
www.regulations.gov and follow the ‘‘Safety Act’’), 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.,
online instructions for submitting and its applicable regulations. Under
comments. the Consent Order, Takata is required to
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Nov 15, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16NON1.SGM 16NON1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_53778/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2017-11-16 03:53:15
Document Modified: 2017-11-16 03:53:15
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice of receipt of petition; notice of receipt of request for deferral and of decision denying request for deferral. | |
| Dates | The closing date for comments is December 18, 2017. | |
| 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). | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 53558 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR