[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29449-29450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11948]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0058; Notice 3]
Toyota Motor Corporation, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Grant of Petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Toyota Motor North America, Inc., on behalf of Toyota Motor
Corporation,\1\ and Toyota Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc.\2\
(collectively referred to as ``Toyota''), has determined that certain
model year 2011 Toyota Sienna multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV)
manufactured between January 3, 2011 and February 11, 2011, do not
fully comply with paragraph S9.5(a)(3) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems. Toyota
filed an appropriate report dated March 17, 2011, pursuant to 49 CFR
Part 573 Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Toyota Motor Corporation is a Japanese corporation that
manufacturers and imports motor vehicles.
\2\ Toyota Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc., is an Indiana
corporation that manufactures motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556, Toyota 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. Notice of receipt of the
petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period, on June
16, 2011 in the Federal Register (76 FR 35271). No comments were
received. To view the petition and all supporting documents log onto
the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ``NHTSA-2011-0058.''
For further information on this decision contact Mr. Ed Chan,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 493-0335, facsimile
(202) 366-7002.
Vehicles involved: Affected are approximately 9,122 model year 2011
Toyota Sienna MPV's that were manufactured between January 3, 2011 and
February 11, 2011.
Noncompliance: Toyota explains that the noncompliance is that the
label identifying the location of the lower child restraint anchorages
in some of the second row seats of the affected vehicles are located
slightly outside the limits as stated within the requirements of
paragraph S9.5(a)(3) of FMVSS No. 225.
Specifically, Toyota also explains that ``the potential deviation
of the label location outside the requirement is very small. Toyota
observed that in a detailed survey of a randomly selected subset
involving 18 of these vehicles in which it found a deviation, the mean
deviation was approximately +1.4 mm (i.e. 26.4 mm from the centerline);
the maximum deviation observed was +2.5 mm (i.e. 27.5 mm from the
centerline); and the standard deviation was only 0.5 mm. While a survey
carried out by the seat supplier also supports Toyota's assertions that
the potential deviation of the label location from the specified
requirements is very small. In the supplier's survey of 240 labels on
120 seats, 3 labels were outside of the specifications of FMVSS No.
225. All 3 of those labels were measured at +1 mm beyond the
specification, or 26 mm from the centerline.''
Summary of Toyota's Analysis and Arguments
Toyota stated its belief that although the lower child anchorage
labels are outside the specified limits of this requirement that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the
following reasons:
(1) The measured deviations are very minor, and such a slight
deviation is not noticeable to consumers and would not impair a
consumer's ability to locate the lower anchorages.
(2) Paragraph S9.1 of FMVSS No. 225 requires that the length of the
straight portion of the lower anchorage bar be a minimum of 25 mm. In
the affected vehicles the length is 30 mm; the total length including
the curved portions is 54 mm. As a result, even with greater deviations
than noted above in label location, some part of the label would be
over some part of the bar, making the bar easy to locate.
(3) The regulatory history of the provision allowing a 25 mm lateral tolerance for the location of the center of the
circular label further supports the argument that this noncompliance
has no adverse safety consequences. As originally adopted, FMVSS No.
225 would have limited the lateral tolerance to 12 mm. In
response to a petition for reconsideration from vehicle manufacturers
concerned that such a low tolerance would be difficult to meet due to
process limitations and seat design features, NHTSA amended the
standard to allow the current 25 mm tolerance. 69 Fed Reg.
48818 (August 11, 2004). In doing so, The agency stated:
``* * * Moreover, the agency believes that increasing the
tolerance to 25 mm will not significantly affect the consumers'
ability to find the LATCH anchorages. While anchor bars are
permitted to be as short as 25 mm in the straight portion of the
bar, most are considerably longer. Even if a 25 mm bar were used,
with a 25 mm tolerance from the center of the bar, the circle will
be, at farthest, tangent to a longitudinal vertical plane tangent to
the side of the anchorage bar. If a person were to probe the seat
bight in the area directly under the marking circle, his or her
finger would easily contact the bar. For bars that are greater than
25 mm in length, with a 25 mm tolerance a portion of the marking
circle will always be over some part of the bar. In either
situation, marking the circle with a 25 mm tolerance will adequately
provide a visual reminder to consumers that the LATCH system is
present and will help users locate and use the bars. Adopting the 25
mm tolerance will also
[[Page 29450]]
harmonize FMVSS No. 225 with the comparable Transport Canada
requirement.''
(4) The seat design is such that only one label at a seating
position can be noncompliant. As the seat cover is constructed, the
labels are secured to the fabric a specified distance apart that
reflects the location of each pair of anchorages, and the labels are
designed to be within the lateral tolerance of the standard.
(5) Information provided in the vehicle owner's manual further
reduces any possibility of confusion when installing a child restraint.
The instructions clearly advise the installer to recline the second row
seat and widen the gap between the seat cushion and the seatback to
expose the lower anchorages.
(6) The label locations are correct for the LATCH anchorage system
located at the third row center seating position.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Toyota indicated that this LATCH anchorage is not required
by the standard, but was voluntarily installed by Toyota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(7) There have been no customer complaints, injuries, or accidents
related to the deviation of the child restraint label location being
slightly outside the limits of the requirement.
In addition, Toyota stated that the model year 2011 Sienna is sold
by Toyota in both the United States and Canada and the subject
noncompliance was reported to both NHTSA and Transport Canada at the
same time. (In Canada, the applicable standard is CMVSS 210.2; it
contains the same requirements as FMVSS No. 225). Transport Canada
responded on March 23, indicating it concurs that ``there is no real or
implied degradation to motor vehicle safety,'' and that no further
action in Canada will be required.
In summation, Toyota believes that the described noncompliance of
the subject vehicles 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.
NHTSA Decision
Requirement Background: The purpose for the locational requirements
for the label identifying the location of the lower child restraint
anchorage is to assure that the installer of a child restraint system
is readily able to locate the appropriate lower child restraint
anchorages.
NHTSA's Analysis of Toyota's Reasoning
After review of the subject petition NHTSA agrees with Toyota that
the location of the subject lower child restraint anchorage is in-line
with the nonconforming location of the lower child restraint anchorage
label, and the Owner's manual provided with the vehicles includes a
description of the location of the anchorages in sufficient detail to
allow the person installing a child seat to readily locate the
anchorage.
NHTSA Conclusions
NHTSA agrees with Toyota's assessment that while the location of
the subject lower child restraint anchorage label is outside of the
allowable tolerance relative to the location of the anchorage that this
would not prevent the installer of a child restraint system from being
readily able to locate the lower child restraint anchorage.
Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Toyota
has met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 225 noncompliance
in the vehicles identified in Toyota's Noncompliance Information Report
is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Toyota's
petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted from the obligation
of providing notification of, and a remedy for, that noncompliance
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the vehicles that Toyota no longer controlled at the
time that it determined that a noncompliance existed in the subject
vehicles.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8)
Issued on: May 10, 2012.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012-11948 Filed 5-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P