Toyota Motor Corporation, Inc., on Behalf of Toyota Corporation, and Toyota Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 35271-35273 [2011-14902]

Download as PDF srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2011 / Notices collection of data which support their implementation. The agency, in prescribing an FMVSS, is to consider available relevant motor vehicle safety data and to consult with other agencies as it deems appropriate. Further, the Act mandates, that in issuing any FMVSS, the agency should consider whether the standard is reasonable, practicable and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed, and whether such standards will contribute to carrying out the purpose of the Act. The Secretary is authorized to revoke such rules and regulations as deemed necessary to carry out this subchapter. Using this authority, the agency issued the initial FMVSS No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number, specifying requirements for vehicle identification numbers to aid the agency in achieving many of its safety goals. The standard was amended in August 1978 by extending its applicability to additional classes of motor vehicles and by specifying the use of a 30-year, 17character Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) for worldwide use. The standard was amended in May 1983 by deleting portions of FMVSS No. 115 and reissuing those portions as a general agency regulation, part 565. Subsequently, the standard was amended again in June 1996 transferring the text of the FMVSS No. 115 to part 565, without making any substantive changes to the VIN requirements as a result of the proposed consolidation. The provision of the part 565 (amended) regulation requires vehicle manufacturers to assign a unique VIN to each new vehicle and to inform NHTSA of the code used in forming the VIN. These regulations apply to all vehicles: Passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, incomplete vehicles, and motorcycles. NHTSA has amended to part 565 to revise certain sections in order to extend the existing VIN system for another thirty years, and to ensure a sufficient supply of unique available VINs and manufacturer identifiers for that time period (72 FR 56027, October 2, 2007). The agency required information to be provided in a slightly different way (e.g., vehicle make being transferred from the first to the second section of the VIN), the scope of the overall reporting requirement of part 565 will not change. Part 567 specifies the content and location of, and other requirements for, the certification label or tag to be affixed to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Specifically, the VIN is required to appear on the certification label. Additionally, this certificate will VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Jun 15, 2011 Jkt 223001 provide the consumer with information to assist him or her in determining which of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are applicable to the vehicle or equipment, and its date of manufacturer. NHTSA estimates a cost burden of $13,348,000 for this requirement. Estimated Annual Burden: The overall total estimated annual hour burden for this collection is 798,047. The overall total estimated cost burden for this collection is $122,138,000 million. Number of Respondents: The total number of respondents for this collection (part 541, 565 and part 567) is 1,104. Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department’s estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Issued on: June 10, 2011. Christopher J. Bonanti, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 2011–14993 Filed 6–15–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2011–0058; Notice 1] Toyota Motor Corporation, Inc., on Behalf of Toyota Corporation, and Toyota Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Toyota Motor North America, Inc., on behalf of Toyota Motor Corporation,1 and Toyota Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc.2 (collectively referred to as as ‘‘Toyota’’) has determined that certain model year 2011 Toyota Sienna passenger cars manufactured between January 3, 2011 and February 11, 2011, do not fully comply with paragraph S9.5(a)(3) of Federal Motor Vehicle 1 Toyota Motor Corporation is a Japanese corporation that manufactures and imports motor vehicles. 2 Toyota Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc., is an Indiana corporation that manufactures motor vehicles. PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 35271 Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems. Toyota has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports (dated March 17, 2011). Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule 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. 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 approximately 9,122 model year 2011 Toyota Sienna passenger cars that were manufactured between January 3, 2011 and February 11, 2011. 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 9,122 3 model year 2011 Toyota Sienna passenger cars that Toyota no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. Paragraph S9.5 of FMVSS No. 225 requires in pertinent part: S9.5 Marking and conspicuity of the lower anchorages. Each vehicle shall comply with S9.5(a) or (b). (a) Above each bar installed pursuant to S4, the vehicle shall be permanently marked with a circle * * * (1) That is not less than 13 mm in diameter; (2) That is either solid or open, with or without words, symbols or pictograms, provided that if words, symbols or pictograms are used, their meaning is explained to the consumer in writing, such as in the vehicle’s owners manual; and (3) That is located such that its center is on each seat back between 50 and 100 mm 3 Toyota’s petition, which was filed under 49 CFR Part 556, requests an agency decision to exempt Toyota as a vehicle manufacturer from the notification and recall responsibilities of 49 CFR Part 573 for 9,122 of the affected vehicles. However, the agency cannot relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Toyota notified them that the subject noncompliance existed. Those vehicles must be brought into conformance, exported, or destroyed. E:\FR\FM\16JNN1.SGM 16JNN1 35272 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2011 / Notices srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES above or on the seat cushion 100 ±25 mm forward of the intersection of the vertical transverse and horizontal longitudinal planes intersecting at the horizontal centerline of each lower anchorage, as illustrated in Figure 22. The center of the circle must be in the vertical longitudinal plane that passes through the center of the bar (±25 mm); (4) The circle may be on a tag * * * 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 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. In a detailed survey of a randomly selected subset involving 18 of these vehicles in which a deviation was observed, 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.’’ 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Jun 15, 2011 Jkt 223001 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 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 clear 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.4 (7) There have been no customer complaints, injuries, or accidents related to the deviation of the child 4 Toyota indicated that this LATCH anchorage is not required by the standard, but was voluntarily installed by Toyota. PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 restraint label location being slightly outside the limits of the requirement. (8) 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 its vehicles to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 225 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. 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, selfaddressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http:// E:\FR\FM\16JNN1.SGM 16JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2011 / Notices 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: July 18, 2011. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: June 10, 2011. Claude H. Harris, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. 2011–14902 Filed 6–15–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [Docket No. FD 35528] srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES CSX Transportation, Inc.; Trackage Rights Exemption; The Indiana Rail Road Company Pursuant to a supplemental trackage rights agreement (Supplemental Agreement No. 1),1 The Indiana Rail Road Company (INRD) has agreed to grant overhead trackage rights to CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) 2 over approximately 3.5 miles of rail line in Terre Haute, Vigo County, Ind., as follows: Between Belt Junction (milepost 181.7) and the south end of INRD’s Martin Siding (milepost 185.2), including a right of entry and exit at the connections of INRD with CSXT at Belt Junction and Spring Hill (milepost 182.7). The new trackage rights agreement extends the trackage rights that INRD had previously granted to CSXT 3 to operate over INRD’s Chicago Subdivision, between the connection of CSXT and INRD trackage at ConMil at approximately INRD milepost 175.5 and the connection of CSXT and INRD trackage at approximately INRD milepost 181.7, a distance of 6.2 miles. The new trackage rights will allow CSXT’s crews to deliver trains to and receive trains from INRD on INRD’s newly constructed Martin Siding south of Belt Junction. The transaction may be consummated on June 30, 2011, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the exemption was filed). As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in Norfolk & Western Railway—Trackage Rights— Burlington Northern, Inc., 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in Mendocino Coast Railway—Lease & Operate—California Western Railroad, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980). This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Stay petitions must be filed by June 23, 2011 (at least 7 days before the exemption becomes effective). An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35528, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423–0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Louis E. Gitomer, 600 Baltimore Ave., Suite 301, Towson, MD 21204. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at ‘‘http:// www.stb.dot.gov.’’ Decided: June 8, 2011. By the Board. Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings. Jeffrey Herzig, Clearance Clerk. [FR Doc. 2011–14640 Filed 6–15–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 1A draft of the agreement was included with the notice of exemption. The parties state that, upon execution of the agreement, an executed copy will be filed with the Board. 2 CSXT controls INRD. CSX Corp.—Control—Ind. Rail Rd., FD 32892 (STB served Nov. 7, 1996). VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Jun 15, 2011 Jkt 223001 3 See CSX Transp., Inc.—Trackage Rights Exemption—Ind. Rail Rd., FD 35058 (STB served July 13, 2007). PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 35273 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Open Meeting of the President’s Advisory Council on Financial Capability Department of the Treasury. Notice of meeting. AGENCY: ACTION: The President’s Advisory Council on Financial Capability (‘‘Council’’) will convene its third meeting on July 12, 2011 via audio webcast beginning at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time. The webcast will be open to the public. Details about how to access the audio webcast will be posted on the Treasury’s Office of Financial Education and Financial Access’ Web site at http://www.treasury.gov (click on Resource Center, then on Office of Financial Education and Financial Access and finally on President’s Advisory Council on Financial Capability). The Council will receive a report from the Council’s subcommittees (Financial Access, Research and Evaluation, Partnerships, and Youth) on their progress and discuss any possible recommendations. DATES: The meeting will be held on July 12, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time. Submission of Written Statements: The public is invited to submit written statements to the Council. Written statements should be sent by any one of the following methods: SUMMARY: Electronic Statements E-mail ofe@treasury.gov; or Paper Statements Send paper statements to the Department of the Treasury, Office of Financial Education and Financial Access, Main Treasury Building, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. In general, the Department will make all statements available in their original format, including any business or personal information provided such as names, addresses, e-mail addresses, or telephone numbers, for public inspection and photocopying in the Department’s library, Room 1428, Main Department Building, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. You can make an appointment to inspect statements by calling (202) 622–0990. All statements received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. You should only submit information that you wish to make publicly available. E:\FR\FM\16JNN1.SGM 16JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35271-35273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14902]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0058; Notice 1]


Toyota Motor Corporation, Inc., on Behalf of Toyota Corporation, 
and Toyota Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc., Receipt of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Toyota Motor North America, Inc., on behalf of Toyota Motor 
Corporation,\1\ and Toyota Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc.\2\ 
(collectively referred to as as ``Toyota'') has determined that certain 
model year 2011 Toyota Sienna passenger cars 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 has filed an 
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and 
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports (dated March 17, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Toyota Motor Corporation is a Japanese corporation that 
manufactures 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) (see implementing rule 
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.
    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 approximately 9,122 model year 2011 Toyota Sienna 
passenger cars that were manufactured between January 3, 2011 and 
February 11, 2011.
    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 9,122 \3\ model year 2011 Toyota Sienna passenger 
cars that Toyota no longer controlled at the time it determined that 
the noncompliance existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Toyota's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR Part 556, 
requests an agency decision to exempt Toyota as a vehicle 
manufacturer from the notification and recall responsibilities of 49 
CFR Part 573 for 9,122 of the affected vehicles. However, the agency 
cannot relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions 
on the sale, offer for sale, introduction or delivery for 
introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles 
under their control after Toyota notified them that the subject 
noncompliance existed. Those vehicles must be brought into 
conformance, exported, or destroyed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph S9.5 of FMVSS No. 225 requires in pertinent part:

    S9.5 Marking and conspicuity of the lower anchorages. Each 
vehicle shall comply with S9.5(a) or (b). (a) Above each bar 
installed pursuant to S4, the vehicle shall be permanently marked 
with a circle * * *
    (1) That is not less than 13 mm in diameter;
    (2) That is either solid or open, with or without words, symbols 
or pictograms, provided that if words, symbols or pictograms are 
used, their meaning is explained to the consumer in writing, such as 
in the vehicle's owners manual; and
    (3) That is located such that its center is on each seat back 
between 50 and 100 mm

[[Page 35272]]

above or on the seat cushion 100 25 mm forward of the 
intersection of the vertical transverse and horizontal longitudinal 
planes intersecting at the horizontal centerline of each lower 
anchorage, as illustrated in Figure 22. The center of the circle 
must be in the vertical longitudinal plane that passes through the 
center of the bar (25 mm);
    (4) The circle may be on a tag * * *

    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 
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. In a 
detailed survey of a randomly selected subset involving 18 of these 
vehicles in which a deviation was observed, 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.''
    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 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 clear 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.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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.
    (8) 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 
its vehicles to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 225 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.
    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://

[[Page 35273]]

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: July 18, 2011.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: June 10, 2011.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2011-14902 Filed 6-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P