Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 41476-41477 [05-14109]

Download as PDF 41476 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 19, 2005 / Notices information required by 49 CFR sections 571.109 and 119, part 567, part 574, and part 575. In addition, the agency conducted a series of focus groups, as required by the TREAD Act, to examine consumer perceptions and understanding of tire labeling. Few of the focus group participants had knowledge of tire labeling beyond the tire brand name, tire size, and tire pressure. Based on the information obtained from comments to the ANPRM and the consumer focus groups, we have concluded that it is likely that few consumers have been influenced by the tire construction information (number of plies and cord material in the sidewall and tread plies) provided on the tire label when deciding to buy a motor vehicle or tire. Therefore, the agency agrees with Goodyear’s statement that the incorrect markings in this case do not present a serious safety concern. (This decision is limited to its specific facts. As some commenters on the ANPRM noted, the existence of steel in a tire’s sidewall can be relevant to the manner in which it should be repaired or retreaded.) There is no effect of the noncompliance on the operational safety of vehicles on which these tires are mounted. In the agency’s judgment, the incorrect labeling of the tire construction information will have an inconsequential effect on motor vehicle safety because most consumers do not base tire purchases or vehicle operation parameters on the tire labeling information found on the side of the tire. In addition, the tires are certified to meet all the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 109 and all other informational markings as required by FMVSS No. 109 are present. Goodyear has corrected the problem. One comment favoring denial was received from a private individual. The issue to be considered in determining whether to grant this petition is the effect of the noncompliance on motor vehicle safety. The comment does not address this issue, and therefore has no bearing on NHTSA’s determination. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the petitioner has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Goodyear’s petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, the noncompliance. Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8) VerDate jul<14>2003 17:15 Jul 18, 2005 Jkt 205001 Issued on: July 13, 2005. Ronald L. Medford, Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety. [FR Doc. 05–14108 Filed 7–18–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2005–21859; Notice 1] Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Toyota Motor North America (Toyota) has determined that certain model year 2003 through 2005 vehicles that it produced do not comply with S5(c)(2) of 49 CFR 571.225, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, ‘‘Child restraint anchorage systems.’’ Toyota has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance Reports.’’ Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), 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. This notice of receipt of Toyota’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. Affected are a total of approximately 156,555 model year 2003 to 2005 Toyota Tundra access cab vehicles produced between September 1, 2002 and April 22, 2005. S5(c)(2) of FMVSS No. 225 requires each vehicle that (i) Has a rear designated seating position and meets the conditions in S4.5.4.1(b) of Standard No. 208 * * * and, (ii) Has an air bag on-off switch meeting the requirements of S4.5.4 of Standard 208 * * * shall have a child restraint anchorage system for a designated passenger seating position in the front seat, instead of a child restraint anchorage system that is required for the rear seat. * * * The subject vehicles do not have a child restraint lower anchorage in the front seat as required by S5(c)(2). Toyota believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Toyota states that it considered whether rearfacing child restraints could be used in the noncompliant vehicles, and ‘‘is unaware of any rear-facing child PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 restraints that require lower anchorages in the vehicle.’’ Toyota further states, Most, if not all rear facing child restraints (even those with lower anchorage systems), have belt paths which allow the child restraint to be secured properly in the front passenger seat of the subject vehicles utilizing the front passenger seatbelt. We also note that child restraint manufacturers provide instructions with their child seats (even lower anchorage equipped child seats) on how to install their restraint with the seatbelt. In addition, all Toyota Tundra vehicles provide instructions on how to install child restraints with the seatbelt. Toyota points out that model year 2000 to 2002 Tundra access cab vehicles have a front passenger airbag on-off switch as standard equipment but not lower anchorage system because they were produced prior to the FMVSS No. 225 lower anchorage requirement with which the subject vehicles noncomply. Toyota asserts that, considering child restraint installation in the front passenger seat, the 2003–2005 MY vehicles (subject vehicles) are no different than the 2000–02 MY vehicles and further, it follows that the subject vehicles are no less safe than the 2000–02 MY vehicles. Toyota further states that it considered whether a lower anchorage child restraint can be mistakenly installed in the front passenger seat attempting to utilize the lower anchorage. Upon investigating the seat bight of the subject vehicles, we believe a current vehicle owner or subsequent owner could easily observe that no lower anchorage bars exist. We would also note that there are no portions of the seat frame within the seat bight of the front passenger seat that may be mistaken for lower anchorage bars. Toyota notes that it has not received customer complaints regarding the absence of a front passenger seat child restraint lower anchorage system, not has it received any reports of a crash, injury or fatality due to this noncompliance. Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on the petition described above. 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. Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Nassif Building, Room PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20590–0001. Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. It is requested, but not required, that two copies of the comments be provided. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM 19JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 19, 2005 / Notices Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ‘‘Help’’ to obtain instructions for filing the document electronically. Comments may be faxed to 1–202–493–2251, or may be submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. 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: August 18, 2005. (Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8). Issued on: July 13, 2005. Ronald L. Medford, Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety. [FR Doc. 05–14109 Filed 7–18–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2005–21844] Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming 2003– 2005 Mercedes Benz SL Class (230) Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming 2003–2005 Mercedes Benz SL Class (230) passenger cars are eligible for importation. AGENCY: SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that 2003–2005 Mercedes Benz SL Class (230) passenger cars that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards are eligible for importation into the United States because (1) they are substantially similar to vehicles that were originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States and that were certified by their VerDate jul<14>2003 18:17 Jul 18, 2005 Jkt 205001 manufacturer as complying with the safety standards, and (2) they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards. DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is August 18, 2005. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and notice number, and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL–401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.]. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–3151). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in the Federal Register. Automobile Concepts, Inc. (‘‘AMC’’), of North Miami, Florida (Registered Importer 01–278) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming 2003– 2005 Mercedes Benz SL Class (230) passenger cars are eligible for PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 41477 importation into the United States. The vehicles which AMC believes are substantially similar are 2003–2005 Mercedes Benz SL Class (230) passenger cars that were manufactured for importation into, and sale in, the United States and certified by their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The petitioner claims that it carefully compared non-U.S. certified 2003–2005 Mercedes Benz SL Class (230) passenger cars to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to compliance with most Federal motor vehicle safety standards. AMC submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 2003–2005 Mercedes Benz SL Class (230) passenger cars, as originally manufactured, conform to many Federal motor vehicle safety standards in the same manner as their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to conform to those standards. Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 2003–2005 Mercedes Benz SL Class (230) passenger cars are identical to their U.S. certified counterparts with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 102 Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, 103 Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 109 New Pneumatic Tires, 113 Hood Latch System, 116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, 124 Accelerator Control Systems, 135 Passenger Car Brake Systems, 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, 202 Head Restraints, 204 Steering Control Rearward Displacement, 205 Glazing Materials, 206 Door Locks and Door Retention Components, 207 Seating Systems, 212 Windshield Mounting, 214 Side Impact Protection, 216 Roof Crush Resistance, 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion, 225 Child Restraint Anchorage Systems, and 302 Flammability of Interior Materials. The petitioner states that the vehicles also conform to the Bumper Standard found in 49 CFR part 581. The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated: Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays: (a) Inscription of the word ‘‘brake’’ on the instrument cluster in place of the international ECE warning symbol (b) replacement or conversion of the speedometer to read in miles per hours, and installation of a U.S.-model instrument cluster. U.S. version E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM 19JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41476-41477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-14109]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2005-21859; Notice 1]


Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Toyota Motor North America (Toyota) has determined that certain 
model year 2003 through 2005 vehicles that it produced do not comply 
with S5(c)(2) of 49 CFR 571.225, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 225, ``Child restraint anchorage systems.'' Toyota has 
filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ``Defect and 
Noncompliance Reports.''
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), 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.
    This notice of receipt of Toyota'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.
    Affected are a total of approximately 156,555 model year 2003 to 
2005 Toyota Tundra access cab vehicles produced between September 1, 
2002 and April 22, 2005. S5(c)(2) of FMVSS No. 225 requires each 
vehicle that

    (i) Has a rear designated seating position and meets the 
conditions in S4.5.4.1(b) of Standard No. 208 * * * and, (ii) Has an 
air bag on-off switch meeting the requirements of S4.5.4 of Standard 
208 * * * shall have a child restraint anchorage system for a 
designated passenger seating position in the front seat, instead of 
a child restraint anchorage system that is required for the rear 
seat. * * *

    The subject vehicles do not have a child restraint lower anchorage 
in the front seat as required by S5(c)(2).
    Toyota believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Toyota 
states that it considered whether rear-facing child restraints could be 
used in the noncompliant vehicles, and ``is unaware of any rear-facing 
child restraints that require lower anchorages in the vehicle.'' Toyota 
further states,

    Most, if not all rear facing child restraints (even those with 
lower anchorage systems), have belt paths which allow the child 
restraint to be secured properly in the front passenger seat of the 
subject vehicles utilizing the front passenger seatbelt. We also 
note that child restraint manufacturers provide instructions with 
their child seats (even lower anchorage equipped child seats) on how 
to install their restraint with the seatbelt. In addition, all 
Toyota Tundra vehicles provide instructions on how to install child 
restraints with the seatbelt.

    Toyota points out that model year 2000 to 2002 Tundra access cab 
vehicles have a front passenger airbag on-off switch as standard 
equipment but not lower anchorage system because they were produced 
prior to the FMVSS No. 225 lower anchorage requirement with which the 
subject vehicles noncomply. Toyota asserts that,

    considering child restraint installation in the front passenger 
seat, the 2003-2005 MY vehicles (subject vehicles) are no different 
than the 2000-02 MY vehicles and further, it follows that the 
subject vehicles are no less safe than the 2000-02 MY vehicles.

    Toyota further states that it considered

    whether a lower anchorage child restraint can be mistakenly 
installed in the front passenger seat attempting to utilize the 
lower anchorage. Upon investigating the seat bight of the subject 
vehicles, we believe a current vehicle owner or subsequent owner 
could easily observe that no lower anchorage bars exist. We would 
also note that there are no portions of the seat frame within the 
seat bight of the front passenger seat that may be mistaken for 
lower anchorage bars.

    Toyota notes that it has not received customer complaints regarding 
the absence of a front passenger seat child restraint lower anchorage 
system, not has it received any reports of a crash, injury or fatality 
due to this noncompliance.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments on the petition described above. 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. Mail: Docket Management 
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Nassif Building, Room PL-
401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20590-0001. Hand 
Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. It is requested, but not required, 
that two copies of the comments be provided. The Docket Section is open 
on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except

[[Page 41477]]

Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted electronically by logging 
onto the Docket Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click 
on ``Help'' to obtain instructions for filing the document 
electronically. Comments may be faxed to 1-202-493-2251, or may be 
submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    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: August 18, 2005.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at CFR 
1.50 and 501.8).
    Issued on: July 13, 2005.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 05-14109 Filed 7-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P