Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 17079-17082 [2017-06959]

Download as PDF nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 66 / Friday, April 7, 2017 / Notices thermostat. Under normal design operating conditions, the thermostat restricts the temperature of the element wire in a range of approximately 50 °C to 100 °C, depending on the specific application. This temperature range is far below the auto-ignition temperature of the needle punch felt, which is approximately 253 °C. c. The seat heater element wire used in the subject vehicle is of a design which eliminates the potential for localized ‘‘hot spots.’’ The heating element wire is comprised of multiple individual filaments insulated from each other by urethane coating. The filaments are connected to each other in parallel rather than in series. In the event that one or more of the filaments are damaged, there is no change in current through the seat heater wire, and therefore no increase in temperature. Given the findings from the evaluation of the seat heater and its components, Toyota believes that the chance of an ignition internal to the seat induced by a malfunctioning seat heater is essentially zero, and no safety risk is presented. 10. The needle punch felt material is one of several layers of the soft material of the seats which is used for securing components together, improving appearance, and reducing noise. For all seating areas the needle punch felt material is either encased between or covered by other materials which themselves comply with FMVSS No. 302 requirements. In the vast majority of applications, the needle punch is encased by other FMVSS No. 302 materials. A typical construction consists of the leather seating surface on which an occupant sits. A cover pad is glued to the underside of the leather. The cover and cover pad each comply with FMVSS No. 302. The needle punch felt is sewn to the cover pad assembly, and when so equipped, a layer of seat heater material is attached to the underside, forming a cover sub-assembly. The seat heater complies with FMVSS No. 302 requirements. The cover sub-assembly is then tightly secured over the seat cushion pad foam or seat back pad foam to the seat structure with ‘‘hog’’ rings. The seat cushion and seat back foam each comply with FMVSS No. 302 requirements. When so secured, no portion of the needle punch felt material is visible or directly exposed to the occupant compartment. As constructed, it would be highly unlikely that the needle punch felt material would ever be exposed to ignition sources such as matches or cigarettes, identified in S2 of FMVSS No. 302 as a stated purpose of VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:52 Apr 06, 2017 Jkt 241001 the standard. Because the needle punch felt is completely surrounded by FMVSS No. 302 compliant material, it would be extremely unlikely that a vehicle occupant would ever be exposed to a risk of injury as a result of the noncompliance . . . 11. The needle punch felt material is only a very small part of the overall mass of the soft material comprising the entire seat assembly (i.e. up to a maximum of 0.55% depending on the seat and vehicle model), and is significantly less in relation to the entire vehicle interior surface area that could potentially be exposed to flame. Therefore, it would have an insignificant adverse effect on interior material burn rate and the potential for occupant injury due to interior fire. 12. There are no known field events involving ignition of the needle punch felt material as of November 22, 2016. Toyota is not aware of any fires, crashes, injuries or customer complaints involving this component in the subject vehicles. 13. NHTSA has previously granted at least nine FMVSS No. 302 petitions for inconsequential noncompliance, one of which was for a vehicle’s seat heater assemblies, one of which was for a vehicle’s console armrest, one of which was for large truck sleeper bedding, and six of which were for issues related to child restraints. (For a full list along with summaries of the petitions that Toyota references please see Toyota’s petition) Toyota stated that they have made improvements that were implemented as of October 21, 2016, to assure that any new vehicle sold by Toyota will meet all FMVSS No. 302 requirements. Toyota concluded by expressing the belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted. 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, any decision on this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Toyota no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 17079 petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Toyota notified them that the subject noncompliance existed. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8. Jeffrey M. Giuseppe, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. 2017–06955 Filed 4–6–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0129; Notice 1] Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Receipt of petition. AGENCY: Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., on behalf of Toyota Motor Corporation and certain other specified Toyota manufacturing entities (collectively referred to as ‘‘Toyota’’), has determined that certain model year (MY) 2016–2017 Lexus RX350 and Lexus RX450H motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 202a, Head Restraints. Toyota filed a noncompliance information report dated November 29, 2016. Toyota also petitioned NHTSA on December 21, 2016, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is May 8, 2017. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and submitted by any of the following methods: • Mail: Send comments 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. • Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to U.S. Department of SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\07APN1.SGM 07APN1 nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with NOTICES 17080 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 66 / Friday, April 7, 2017 / Notices 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. • Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at https:// www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Comments may also be faxed to (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 comments you have submitted by mail were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to https:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. All comments and supporting materials received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the fullest 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. All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the Internet at https:// www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown in the heading of this notice. DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477–78). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Overview: Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. (Toyota), has determined that certain model year (MY) 2016–2017 Lexus RX350 and RX450H motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S4.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 202a, VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:52 Apr 06, 2017 Jkt 241001 Head Restraints. Toyota filed a noncompliance information report dated November 29, 2016, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Toyota also petitioned NHTSA on December 21, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates 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. II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 120,748 MY 2016–2017 Lexus RX350 and Lexus RX450H motor vehicles manufactured between September 28, 2016, and November 23, 2016, are potentially involved. III. Noncompliance: Toyota explains that the noncompliance is that when adjusting the rear seat outboard head restraints in the subject vehicles from the first adjustment position to the second, the lock release button must be depressed while the head restraint is being pulled upward. Since this is the same action that is required to remove the head restraint, the requirements of paragraph S4.5 of FMVSS No. 202a are not met. IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.5 of FMVSS No. 202a states: S4.5 Removability of head restraints. The head restraint must not be removable without a deliberate action distinct from any act necessary for upward adjustment . . . V. Summary of Toyota’s Petition: Toyota described the subject noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. In support of its petition, Toyota submitted the following reasoning: 1. The rear outboard head restraints continue to meet the underlying purpose of S4.5 of the standard: a. Background of S4.5: Toyota referenced a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that NHTSA issued in 2001 1 to upgrade FMVSS No. 202 and stated that its principal focus was to improve performance of front and rear outboard head restraints to mitigate ‘‘whiplash’’ injuries, particularly in rear crashes. Toyota stated that the agency recognized that existing adjustable head restraints could be manually removed solely by hand, and not be replaced, thereby creating a greater risk of injury. 1 66 PO 00000 FR 968 (January 4, 2001). Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 As a result, the proposed rule stated that removable front seat head restraints would not be permitted, but that due to concerns with rear visibility, removable restraints in the rear would not be prohibited. Toyota stated that the draft rule did not contain any requirement comparable to the one set forth in paragraph S4.5 of FMVSS No. 202a. Toyota further explained that when NHTSA issued the FMVSS No. 202 Final Rule in 2004,2 it made a variety of changes from the requirements proposed in the NPRM. One of those was to not require rear seat outboard head restraints, but to impose certain requirements on head restraints that were voluntarily installed. Toyota noted that most of the comments submitted on the NPRM favored removability of both front and rear seat head restraints solely by hand, although some supported a prohibition on removability at all positions, because a removed restraint might not be replaced or correctly reinstalled. Toyota stated that NHTSA ultimately decided to allow head restraint removability for both front and rear restraints, but for both front and rear optional head restraints, specified that removal must be by means of a deliberate action that is distinct from any act necessary for adjustment to ensure that head restraints are not accidentally removed when being adjusted, thereby reducing the likelihood of inadvertent head restraint removal and increasing the chances that vehicle occupants will receive the benefits of properly positioned head restraints. To implement this requirement, the agency added the text in paragraph S4.5. In 2007, the agency amended the standard by adding the word ‘‘upward’’ before ‘‘adjustment’’ to clarify the upward adjustment and removability aspects of the requirement. b. The noncompliance is inconsequential because the rear outboard head restraints meet the underlying purpose of S4.5: Toyota stated that the rear seat head restraints in the subject vehicles allow manual adjustment by sliding the head restraint in and out of the seat back on stays attached to the head restraint. Position locking is achieved by two notches in one of the stays, allowing for a detent mechanism. Toyota stated that the posts go through plates on top of the seat back, one of which contains a button which is pressed to allow the restraint to be removed. To adjust the height of the head restraint from the fully stowed position on top of the seatback to the first notch on the stay, the restraint is simply pulled upward. To reach the 2 69 E:\FR\FM\07APN1.SGM FR 74848 (December 14, 2004). 07APN1 nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 66 / Friday, April 7, 2017 / Notices second notch, the button must first be pressed to allow the restraint to be lifted; it then will lock in position. To remove the restraint, the button must again be pressed before lifting it out of the seatback. Because the button must be pressed to adjust the restraint from the first notch position to the second, and the same action is required to start the removal process, the restraint does not conform to paragraph S4.5 of FMVSS No. 202a. Toyota stated that there are three factors, when considered together, that make this noncompliance inconsequential to motor vehicles safety: i. With the subject head restraints, the necessity to press the release button to move from the first notch to the second, in addition to the need to press it to release the restraint from the second notch to remove it, lessens the ease of removal, thereby reducing the likelihood of inadvertent removal and increasing the chances that the occupant will receive the benefits of a properly positioned head restraint. ii. The subject vehicle model can be generally described as a mid-sized sports-utility vehicle (SUV). The roofline tends to slope downward toward the rear of the vehicle, and the distance between the top of the head restraint and the headliner is less than in other mid-sized SUV’s with a less sloped roofline. The rear seat can be manually adjusted forward and rearward on the seat track for a distance of 120mm from the front position to the rear position. The nominal design seat back position is approximately 27 degrees rearward to the vertical line, and the seat back can be reclined an additional 10 degrees. The seat back folds forward from the nominal design position. (See figure 6 of Toyota’s petition). Given the rear seat design, there are a variety of combinations of seat track and seat back positions that can be attained. Typically the seat would most likely be placed in the mid-track position or rearward for occupant comfort and convenience. From the mid-track position (60mm) rearward there are 30 combinations of seat track/ seat back angle combinations for the manually reclining seat back.3 Of these combinations there are 25 where there would be some degree of interference between the top of the head restraint and the vehicle headliner if someone intended to remove it. To completely 3 Some models are equipped with a power reclining seat back with the same adjustment range as the manual reclining seat back, but which can be replaced in positions between the 2 degree increments of the manual seat back. VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:52 Apr 06, 2017 Jkt 241001 remove the restraint from the top of the seat in these 25 combinations, there must be a deliberate action to compress the soft material of the restraint, because it cannot be pulled directly out of the seatback. In some cases the seat back angle would have to be adjusted or the seat moved forward on the seat track before the restraint can be removed without headliner interference. (See figure 7 of Toyota’s petition) Together with the need to press the release button to move the head restraint when in either the first or second notches, such further deliberate actions in many seat adjustment positions of either compressing the restraint material, adjusting the seat slide position, or adjusting the seat back angle lessen the ease with which the restraint can be removed, reduce the chance of accidental removal, and increase the chances that the occupant will receive the benefits of a properly positioned head restraint. iii. Finally, in addition to the two previously noted factors, it is unlikely that the head restraint will be inadvertently removed as there is a 97.7mm of travel distance from the second notch until the head restraint is fully removed from the seat; this length is much greater than the travel distance between the fully stowed position and second notch (37.5mm). The difference is easily recognized by anyone attempting to adjust the head restraint. (See figure 8 of Toyota’s petition) Therefore, the overall design and operation of the rear head restraints in the subject vehicles fulfill the purpose and policy behind the S4.5 requirement. 2. The Design and performance of the rear seat head restraints provides safety benefits to a broad range of occupants and pose no risk of exacerbating whiplash injuries, making the noncompliance inconsequential: a. Toyota stated that NHTSA elected not to mandate rear seat head restraints in vehicles; however, certain requirements for voluntarily installed rear head restraints were adopted. Toyota stated that the requirements for rear outboard head restraints are common in some respects with those of front seat restraints, but that rear seat environment and usage resulted in several differences. Toyota stated that NHTSA analyzed the usage of rear seats and studied the various types of occupants who typically occupy rear seating positions. Toyota stated that NHTSA found that 10 percent of all occupants sit in rear outboard seats, and that only 5.1 percent of those are people who are 13 years or older. Toyota stated that this justified a difference in the minimum height requirement for front PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 17081 and rear head restraints. The standard requires front integral head restraints to have a height of at least 800mm above the H-point 4 to the top of the restraint; the top of an adjustable restraint must reach at least 800mm and cannot be adjustable below 750mm. Rear outboard head restraints must have a height not less than 750mm in any position of adjustment. Toyota quoted the agency as stating: ‘‘The agency has estimated that a 750mm head restraint height would offer whiplash protection to nearly the entire population of rear seat occupants.’’ Toyota stated that the rear outboard restraints in the subject vehicles meet or surpass all the requirements in the completely stowed position and in the first notch position. Toyota stated that there is nothing about the performance of these restraints that poses a risk of exacerbating whiplash injuries and that the noncompliance does not create such a risk. b. Rear head restraint height well surpasses the requirements of the standard: Toyota stated that when NHTSA established height requirements for mandatory front head restraints, an adjustment range was adopted that was estimated to ensure that the top of the head restraint exceeded the head center of gravity for an estimated 93 percent of all adults. Toyota stated that research conducted since the implementation of the previous height requirements has shown that head restraints should be at least as high as the center of gravity of the occupant’s head to adequately control motion of the head and neck relative to the torso. Toyota stated that the rear head restraints in the subject vehicles not only surpass the 750mm requirement for voluntarily installed rear seat restraints, but also can be adjusted to surpass the 800mm requirement applicable to mandatory front seat head restraints. In the fully stowed position, the rear outboard head restraints measure 780mm above the H-point. In the first notch position they are 797mm above the H-point, and in the second notch position they are 816mm above the Hpoint. (See figure 9 of Toyota’s petition) Toyota stated that it evaluated the height of the rear outboard head restraints in the subject vehicles against the center of gravity of various size occupants. In the first notch position, which can be attained by simply pulling upward on the head restraint in a 4 The H-point is defined by a test machine placed in the vehicle seat. From the side, the H-point represents the pivot point between the torso and upper leg portions of the test machine, or roughly like the hip joint of a 50th percentile male occupant viewed laterally. E:\FR\FM\07APN1.SGM 07APN1 17082 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 66 / Friday, April 7, 2017 / Notices nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with NOTICES manner compliant with S4.5, the center of gravity of the head of an occupant the size of an AM95 is below the top of the head restraint.5 (See figure 10 of Toyota’s petition) Therefore, for virtually 100 percent of the female adult population of the United States 6 and over 95 percent of the U.S. male adult population, the rear outboard head restraints can help ‘‘adequately control motion of the head and neck relative to the torso’’ in a position that can be adjusted in compliance with the standard. It can also protect occupants larger than AM95 occupants when adjusted to the second notch position. c. Toyota stated that the rear outboard head restraints in the subject vehicles meet and surpass all other performance requirements of the standard not only in the fully stowed position, but also in both the first and second notch positons. These include energy absorption (S4.2.5 and S5.2.5), backset retention (S4.2.7 and S5.2.7), and height retention (S4.2.6 and S5.2.6). Toyota summarized the performance in tables that can be found in its petition. It contended that there is nothing about the performance of the rear outboard head restraints in the subject vehicles that in relation to the additional criteria set forth in these tables that poses a risk of exacerbating whiplash injuries. 3. The occupancy rates and usage of the Lexus RX model further supports the conclusion that the noncompliance with S4.5 is inconsequential to safety: The rear seat vehicle environment has unique aspects in terms of occupancy rates and usage. This is why the agency decided to specify different requirements for front and rear seat head restraints. As noted above, the agency found that, in the general vehicle population studied for the purpose of adopting FMVSS 202a requirements, the occupancy rate for the rear outboard seating positions was about 10 percent. Toyota undertook an analysis of the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System (GES) data to better understand the outboard rear seat occupancy rate in the subject vehicles. The subject vehicles are the fourth generation of the Lexus RX model series, which was introduced for MY2016. Because the exposure of this model year in the fleet is somewhat 5 NHTSA assumed during the rulemaking that the center of gravity of the head of the AM95 was 105mm from the top of the head. See FRIA at page 44. See also 66 FR at page 975. Figure 10, below, uses this value. The center of gravity of the head of the BIORID III ATD is 110.5mm below the top of the head. 6 ‘‘The center of gravity height of a 99th percentile female reclined at 25 degrees is about 19mm below a 750mm (29.5 inches) high head restraint at a 50mm (2 inch) backset.’’ VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:52 Apr 06, 2017 Jkt 241001 limited, and NASS GES does not yet contain MY2016 data, the three previous generations of the RX model going back to MY 1999 were used for the analysis. While there are design differences in each generation, all are mid-size SUV’s, and it is expected that the user demographics and rear seat usage would be representative of the subject vehicles. Based on the analysis, the occupancy rate for rear outboard seat occupants in all types of crashes for the RX models analyzed was 10 percent—meaning that 10 percent of the RX vehicles involved in crashes have a rear outboard passenger. This is the same as what NHTSA found to be the occupancy rate in the general vehicle population when it undertook the FMVSS 202a rulemaking. In a smaller subset of only rear crashes, the occupancy rate in the RX models is slightly higher, but still small—only 13 percent. The data analyzed were insufficient to provide an understanding of the size of the occupants who ride in the rear outboard positions in the subject vehicles. However, considering that the occupancy rate is consistent with NHTSA’s previous analyses, there is no reason to believe that occupant sizes would be significantly different from the general vehicle population. In the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, the agency found that, of the small percentage of occupants that ride in the rear of vehicles generally, 83 percent of all rear outboard occupants were 5′9″ or less and 17 percent were 5′10″ and above. The latter is the height of the average U.S. male. As outlined in Section II, above, the rear outboard head restraints in the subject vehicles are designed so that the center of gravity of the head of the small percentage of large occupants who may occasionally ride in the rear seats of the subject vehicles is below the top of the head restraint. Therefore, the number of occupants who may actually seek to adjust the rear outboard head restraints in the subject vehicles is insignificant, further justifying a finding that the paragraph S4.5 noncompliance is inconsequential to vehicle safety. Toyota stated that it is unaware of any consumer complaints, field reports, accidents, or injuries that have occurred as a result of this noncompliance as of December 15, 2016. Toyota concluded by expressing the belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted. PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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, any decision on this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Toyota no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Toyota notified them that the subject noncompliance existed. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8. Jeffrey M. Giuseppe, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. 2017–06959 Filed 4–6–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0118; Notice 1] Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming Model Year 2013 BMW R1200GS Adventure Motorcycles Are Eligible for Importation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Receipt of petition. AGENCY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that model year (MY) 2013 BMW R1200GS Adventure motorcycles (MCs) that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), are eligible for importation into the United States because they are substantially similar to vehicles that were originally manufactured for sale in the United States and that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards (the U.S.-certified version of the 2013 BMW R1200GS Adventure motorcycles) and they are SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\07APN1.SGM 07APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 66 (Friday, April 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17079-17082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06959]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0129; Notice 1]


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

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., 
on behalf of Toyota Motor Corporation and certain other specified 
Toyota manufacturing entities (collectively referred to as ``Toyota''), 
has determined that certain model year (MY) 2016-2017 Lexus RX350 and 
Lexus RX450H motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 202a, Head Restraints. Toyota filed 
a noncompliance information report dated November 29, 2016. Toyota also 
petitioned NHTSA on December 21, 2016, for a decision that the subject 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is May 8, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data, 
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the 
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and 
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments 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.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to U.S. Department 
of

[[Page 17080]]

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.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging 
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to (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 comments you have submitted by mail were 
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the 
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of 
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the 
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials 
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be 
considered to the fullest 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.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials 
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and 
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the Internet at 
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for 
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown 
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a 
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    I. Overview: Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North 
America, Inc. (Toyota), has determined that certain model year (MY) 
2016-2017 Lexus RX350 and RX450H motor vehicles do not fully comply 
with paragraph S4.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 
No. 202a, Head Restraints. Toyota filed a noncompliance information 
report dated November 29, 2016, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and 
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Toyota also petitioned NHTSA 
on December 21, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 
49 CFR part 556, for an exemption from the notification and remedy 
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates 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.
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 120,748 MY 2016-2017 Lexus 
RX350 and Lexus RX450H motor vehicles manufactured between September 
28, 2016, and November 23, 2016, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: Toyota explains that the noncompliance is that 
when adjusting the rear seat outboard head restraints in the subject 
vehicles from the first adjustment position to the second, the lock 
release button must be depressed while the head restraint is being 
pulled upward. Since this is the same action that is required to remove 
the head restraint, the requirements of paragraph S4.5 of FMVSS No. 
202a are not met.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.5 of FMVSS No. 202a states:

    S4.5 Removability of head restraints. The head restraint must 
not be removable without a deliberate action distinct from any act 
necessary for upward adjustment . . .

    V. Summary of Toyota's Petition: Toyota described the subject 
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is 
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Toyota submitted the following 
reasoning:
    1. The rear outboard head restraints continue to meet the 
underlying purpose of S4.5 of the standard:
    a. Background of S4.5: Toyota referenced a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) that NHTSA issued in 2001 \1\ to upgrade FMVSS No. 
202 and stated that its principal focus was to improve performance of 
front and rear outboard head restraints to mitigate ``whiplash'' 
injuries, particularly in rear crashes. Toyota stated that the agency 
recognized that existing adjustable head restraints could be manually 
removed solely by hand, and not be replaced, thereby creating a greater 
risk of injury. As a result, the proposed rule stated that removable 
front seat head restraints would not be permitted, but that due to 
concerns with rear visibility, removable restraints in the rear would 
not be prohibited. Toyota stated that the draft rule did not contain 
any requirement comparable to the one set forth in paragraph S4.5 of 
FMVSS No. 202a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 66 FR 968 (January 4, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Toyota further explained that when NHTSA issued the FMVSS No. 202 
Final Rule in 2004,\2\ it made a variety of changes from the 
requirements proposed in the NPRM. One of those was to not require rear 
seat outboard head restraints, but to impose certain requirements on 
head restraints that were voluntarily installed. Toyota noted that most 
of the comments submitted on the NPRM favored removability of both 
front and rear seat head restraints solely by hand, although some 
supported a prohibition on removability at all positions, because a 
removed restraint might not be replaced or correctly reinstalled. 
Toyota stated that NHTSA ultimately decided to allow head restraint 
removability for both front and rear restraints, but for both front and 
rear optional head restraints, specified that removal must be by means 
of a deliberate action that is distinct from any act necessary for 
adjustment to ensure that head restraints are not accidentally removed 
when being adjusted, thereby reducing the likelihood of inadvertent 
head restraint removal and increasing the chances that vehicle 
occupants will receive the benefits of properly positioned head 
restraints. To implement this requirement, the agency added the text in 
paragraph S4.5. In 2007, the agency amended the standard by adding the 
word ``upward'' before ``adjustment'' to clarify the upward adjustment 
and removability aspects of the requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 69 FR 74848 (December 14, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. The noncompliance is inconsequential because the rear outboard 
head restraints meet the underlying purpose of S4.5: Toyota stated that 
the rear seat head restraints in the subject vehicles allow manual 
adjustment by sliding the head restraint in and out of the seat back on 
stays attached to the head restraint. Position locking is achieved by 
two notches in one of the stays, allowing for a detent mechanism. 
Toyota stated that the posts go through plates on top of the seat back, 
one of which contains a button which is pressed to allow the restraint 
to be removed. To adjust the height of the head restraint from the 
fully stowed position on top of the seatback to the first notch on the 
stay, the restraint is simply pulled upward. To reach the

[[Page 17081]]

second notch, the button must first be pressed to allow the restraint 
to be lifted; it then will lock in position. To remove the restraint, 
the button must again be pressed before lifting it out of the seatback. 
Because the button must be pressed to adjust the restraint from the 
first notch position to the second, and the same action is required to 
start the removal process, the restraint does not conform to paragraph 
S4.5 of FMVSS No. 202a.
    Toyota stated that there are three factors, when considered 
together, that make this noncompliance inconsequential to motor 
vehicles safety:
    i. With the subject head restraints, the necessity to press the 
release button to move from the first notch to the second, in addition 
to the need to press it to release the restraint from the second notch 
to remove it, lessens the ease of removal, thereby reducing the 
likelihood of inadvertent removal and increasing the chances that the 
occupant will receive the benefits of a properly positioned head 
restraint.
    ii. The subject vehicle model can be generally described as a mid-
sized sports-utility vehicle (SUV). The roofline tends to slope 
downward toward the rear of the vehicle, and the distance between the 
top of the head restraint and the headliner is less than in other mid-
sized SUV's with a less sloped roofline. The rear seat can be manually 
adjusted forward and rearward on the seat track for a distance of 120mm 
from the front position to the rear position. The nominal design seat 
back position is approximately 27 degrees rearward to the vertical 
line, and the seat back can be reclined an additional 10 degrees. The 
seat back folds forward from the nominal design position. (See figure 6 
of Toyota's petition).
    Given the rear seat design, there are a variety of combinations of 
seat track and seat back positions that can be attained. Typically the 
seat would most likely be placed in the mid-track position or rearward 
for occupant comfort and convenience. From the mid-track position 
(60mm) rearward there are 30 combinations of seat track/seat back angle 
combinations for the manually reclining seat back.\3\ Of these 
combinations there are 25 where there would be some degree of 
interference between the top of the head restraint and the vehicle 
headliner if someone intended to remove it. To completely remove the 
restraint from the top of the seat in these 25 combinations, there must 
be a deliberate action to compress the soft material of the restraint, 
because it cannot be pulled directly out of the seatback. In some cases 
the seat back angle would have to be adjusted or the seat moved forward 
on the seat track before the restraint can be removed without headliner 
interference. (See figure 7 of Toyota's petition)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Some models are equipped with a power reclining seat back 
with the same adjustment range as the manual reclining seat back, 
but which can be replaced in positions between the 2 degree 
increments of the manual seat back.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Together with the need to press the release button to move the head 
restraint when in either the first or second notches, such further 
deliberate actions in many seat adjustment positions of either 
compressing the restraint material, adjusting the seat slide position, 
or adjusting the seat back angle lessen the ease with which the 
restraint can be removed, reduce the chance of accidental removal, and 
increase the chances that the occupant will receive the benefits of a 
properly positioned head restraint.
    iii. Finally, in addition to the two previously noted factors, it 
is unlikely that the head restraint will be inadvertently removed as 
there is a 97.7mm of travel distance from the second notch until the 
head restraint is fully removed from the seat; this length is much 
greater than the travel distance between the fully stowed position and 
second notch (37.5mm). The difference is easily recognized by anyone 
attempting to adjust the head restraint. (See figure 8 of Toyota's 
petition) Therefore, the overall design and operation of the rear head 
restraints in the subject vehicles fulfill the purpose and policy 
behind the S4.5 requirement.
    2. The Design and performance of the rear seat head restraints 
provides safety benefits to a broad range of occupants and pose no risk 
of exacerbating whiplash injuries, making the noncompliance 
inconsequential:
    a. Toyota stated that NHTSA elected not to mandate rear seat head 
restraints in vehicles; however, certain requirements for voluntarily 
installed rear head restraints were adopted. Toyota stated that the 
requirements for rear outboard head restraints are common in some 
respects with those of front seat restraints, but that rear seat 
environment and usage resulted in several differences. Toyota stated 
that NHTSA analyzed the usage of rear seats and studied the various 
types of occupants who typically occupy rear seating positions. Toyota 
stated that NHTSA found that 10 percent of all occupants sit in rear 
outboard seats, and that only 5.1 percent of those are people who are 
13 years or older. Toyota stated that this justified a difference in 
the minimum height requirement for front and rear head restraints. The 
standard requires front integral head restraints to have a height of at 
least 800mm above the H-point \4\ to the top of the restraint; the top 
of an adjustable restraint must reach at least 800mm and cannot be 
adjustable below 750mm. Rear outboard head restraints must have a 
height not less than 750mm in any position of adjustment. Toyota quoted 
the agency as stating: ``The agency has estimated that a 750mm head 
restraint height would offer whiplash protection to nearly the entire 
population of rear seat occupants.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The H-point is defined by a test machine placed in the 
vehicle seat. From the side, the H-point represents the pivot point 
between the torso and upper leg portions of the test machine, or 
roughly like the hip joint of a 50th percentile male occupant viewed 
laterally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Toyota stated that the rear outboard restraints in the subject 
vehicles meet or surpass all the requirements in the completely stowed 
position and in the first notch position. Toyota stated that there is 
nothing about the performance of these restraints that poses a risk of 
exacerbating whiplash injuries and that the noncompliance does not 
create such a risk.
    b. Rear head restraint height well surpasses the requirements of 
the standard: Toyota stated that when NHTSA established height 
requirements for mandatory front head restraints, an adjustment range 
was adopted that was estimated to ensure that the top of the head 
restraint exceeded the head center of gravity for an estimated 93 
percent of all adults. Toyota stated that research conducted since the 
implementation of the previous height requirements has shown that head 
restraints should be at least as high as the center of gravity of the 
occupant's head to adequately control motion of the head and neck 
relative to the torso.
    Toyota stated that the rear head restraints in the subject vehicles 
not only surpass the 750mm requirement for voluntarily installed rear 
seat restraints, but also can be adjusted to surpass the 800mm 
requirement applicable to mandatory front seat head restraints. In the 
fully stowed position, the rear outboard head restraints measure 780mm 
above the H-point. In the first notch position they are 797mm above the 
H-point, and in the second notch position they are 816mm above the H-
point. (See figure 9 of Toyota's petition)
    Toyota stated that it evaluated the height of the rear outboard 
head restraints in the subject vehicles against the center of gravity 
of various size occupants. In the first notch position, which can be 
attained by simply pulling upward on the head restraint in a

[[Page 17082]]

manner compliant with S4.5, the center of gravity of the head of an 
occupant the size of an AM95 is below the top of the head restraint.\5\ 
(See figure 10 of Toyota's petition) Therefore, for virtually 100 
percent of the female adult population of the United States \6\ and 
over 95 percent of the U.S. male adult population, the rear outboard 
head restraints can help ``adequately control motion of the head and 
neck relative to the torso'' in a position that can be adjusted in 
compliance with the standard. It can also protect occupants larger than 
AM95 occupants when adjusted to the second notch position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NHTSA assumed during the rulemaking that the center of 
gravity of the head of the AM95 was 105mm from the top of the head. 
See FRIA at page 44. See also 66 FR at page 975. Figure 10, below, 
uses this value. The center of gravity of the head of the BIORID III 
ATD is 110.5mm below the top of the head.
    \6\ ``The center of gravity height of a 99th percentile female 
reclined at 25 degrees is about 19mm below a 750mm (29.5 inches) 
high head restraint at a 50mm (2 inch) backset.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Toyota stated that the rear outboard head restraints in the 
subject vehicles meet and surpass all other performance requirements of 
the standard not only in the fully stowed position, but also in both 
the first and second notch positons. These include energy absorption 
(S4.2.5 and S5.2.5), backset retention (S4.2.7 and S5.2.7), and height 
retention (S4.2.6 and S5.2.6). Toyota summarized the performance in 
tables that can be found in its petition. It contended that there is 
nothing about the performance of the rear outboard head restraints in 
the subject vehicles that in relation to the additional criteria set 
forth in these tables that poses a risk of exacerbating whiplash 
injuries.
    3. The occupancy rates and usage of the Lexus RX model further 
supports the conclusion that the noncompliance with S4.5 is 
inconsequential to safety: The rear seat vehicle environment has unique 
aspects in terms of occupancy rates and usage. This is why the agency 
decided to specify different requirements for front and rear seat head 
restraints. As noted above, the agency found that, in the general 
vehicle population studied for the purpose of adopting FMVSS 202a 
requirements, the occupancy rate for the rear outboard seating 
positions was about 10 percent. Toyota undertook an analysis of the 
National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System 
(GES) data to better understand the outboard rear seat occupancy rate 
in the subject vehicles. The subject vehicles are the fourth generation 
of the Lexus RX model series, which was introduced for MY2016. Because 
the exposure of this model year in the fleet is somewhat limited, and 
NASS GES does not yet contain MY2016 data, the three previous 
generations of the RX model going back to MY 1999 were used for the 
analysis. While there are design differences in each generation, all 
are mid-size SUV's, and it is expected that the user demographics and 
rear seat usage would be representative of the subject vehicles.
    Based on the analysis, the occupancy rate for rear outboard seat 
occupants in all types of crashes for the RX models analyzed was 10 
percent--meaning that 10 percent of the RX vehicles involved in crashes 
have a rear outboard passenger. This is the same as what NHTSA found to 
be the occupancy rate in the general vehicle population when it 
undertook the FMVSS 202a rulemaking. In a smaller subset of only rear 
crashes, the occupancy rate in the RX models is slightly higher, but 
still small--only 13 percent.
    The data analyzed were insufficient to provide an understanding of 
the size of the occupants who ride in the rear outboard positions in 
the subject vehicles. However, considering that the occupancy rate is 
consistent with NHTSA's previous analyses, there is no reason to 
believe that occupant sizes would be significantly different from the 
general vehicle population. In the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, 
the agency found that, of the small percentage of occupants that ride 
in the rear of vehicles generally, 83 percent of all rear outboard 
occupants were 5'9'' or less and 17 percent were 5'10'' and above. The 
latter is the height of the average U.S. male. As outlined in Section 
II, above, the rear outboard head restraints in the subject vehicles 
are designed so that the center of gravity of the head of the small 
percentage of large occupants who may occasionally ride in the rear 
seats of the subject vehicles is below the top of the head restraint. 
Therefore, the number of occupants who may actually seek to adjust the 
rear outboard head restraints in the subject vehicles is insignificant, 
further justifying a finding that the paragraph S4.5 noncompliance is 
inconsequential to vehicle safety.
    Toyota stated that it is unaware of any consumer complaints, field 
reports, accidents, or injuries that have occurred as a result of this 
noncompliance as of December 15, 2016.
    Toyota concluded by expressing the belief that the subject 
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, 
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the 
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the 
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    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, any decision on 
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Toyota no 
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance 
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve 
vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer 
for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate 
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Toyota 
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-06959 Filed 4-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P