Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 22183-22186 [2017-09650]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Notices
Jackson Street, Mail Drop 126F,
Phoenix, AZ 85007; sent via email to
Sonorancorridor@azdot.gov; or
submitted on the study’s Web site at
https://www.azdot.gov/
SonoranCorridor.
The Paperwork Reduction Act seeks,
in part, to minimize the cost to the
taxpayer of the creation, collection,
maintenance, use dissemination, and
disposition of information. Accordingly,
unless a specific request for a complete
hardcopy of the NEPA document is
received before it is printed, the FHWA
and ADOT will distribute only
electronic versions of the NEPA
document. A complete copy of the
environmental document will be
available for review at locations
throughout the study area. An electronic
copy of the complete environmental
document will be available on the
study’s Web site at https://
www.azdot.gov/SonoranCorridor.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 23 CFR 771.123.
Issued on: May 4, 2017.
Karla S. Petty,
Arizona Division Administrator, Federal
Highway Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017–09452 Filed 5–11–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0138; Notice 1]
Jaguar Land Rover North America,
LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
AGENCY:
Jaguar Land Rover North
America, LLC (JLR)on behalf of Jaguar
Land Rover Limited, has determined
that certain model year (MY) 2016–2017
Land Rover Range Rover and Range
Rover Sport motor vehicles do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208,
Occupant Crash Protection, and FMVSS
No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. JLR filed
a noncompliance report dated December
2, 2016. JLR also petitioned NHTSA on
December 23, 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 June 12, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written data, views,
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 May 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22183
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: Jaguar Land Rover North
America, LLC (JLR), has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2016–2017
Land Rover Range Rover and Range
Rover Sport motor vehicles do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208,
Occupant Crash Protection, and FMVSS
No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. JLR filed
a noncompliance report dated December
2, 2016, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. JLR also
petitioned NHTSA on December 23,
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 JLR’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
16,502 MY 2016–2017 Land Rover
Range Rover and MY 2016–2017 Land
Rover Range Rover Sport motor
vehicles, manufactured between May 3,
2016, and October 14, 2016, are
potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance: JLR explains that
the noncompliance involves the
Emergency Locking Retractor (ELR) in
the safety belt assembly of the vehicle’s
front left seat. These ELR’s are equipped
with a vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism and a webbing-sensitive
locking mechanism. The noncompliance
specifically involves the vehiclesensitive locking mechanism, which
does not lock as designed when
subjected to the requirements of
paragraph
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.3 of
FMVSS No. 209 states in pertinent part:
S4.3 Requirements for hardware . . .
(j) Emergency-locking retractor . . .
(2) For seat belt assemblies manufactured
on or after February 22, 2007 and for
manufacturers opting for early compliance.
An emergency-locking retractor of a Type 1
or Type 2 seat belt assembly, when tested in
accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph S5.2(j)(2) . . .
(ii) Shall lock before the webbing payout
exceeds the maximum limit of 25 mm when
the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of
0.7 g under the applicable test conditions of
S5.2(j)(2)(iii)(A) or (B). The retractor is
determined to be locked when the webbing
belt load tension is at least 35 N.
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
22184
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Notices
Paragraph S7.1.1.3 of FMVSS No. 208
states in pertinent part:
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
S7.1.1.3 A Type 1 lap belt or the lap belt
portion of any Type 2 seat belt assembly
installed at any forward-facing outboard
designated seating position of a vehicle with
a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000
pounds or less to comply with a requirement
of this standard, except walk-in van-type
vehicles and school buses, and except in rear
seating positions in law enforcement
vehicles, shall meet the requirements of S7.1
by means of an emergency locking retractor
that conforms to stand No. 209 (49 CFR
571.209) . . .
V. Summary of JLR’s Petition: JLR
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, JLR
submitted the following reasoning:
(a) ELR Is Voluntarily Equipped with
a Webbing Sensitive Locking
Mechanism: The driver’s ELR safety belt
assembly also contains a voluntary
webbing-sensitive locking mechanism
which provides crash restraint
performance comparable to the
performance provided by an FMVSS No.
209 compliant vehicle sensitive
mechanism. A description of the tests
that were performed and the results that
were obtained which support this
petition are contained in the petition.
The webbing sensitive locking
mechanism is designed to lock at
approximately 1.4–2.0g. The webbingsensitive locking mechanism was
designed to meet the requirements of
other non-U.S. markets.
(b) Testing and Analyses: Tests and
analyses were conducted to determine
the effect of a non-compliant vehiclesensitive locking mechanism ELR on
safety belt restraint (retractor locking)
performance and any commensurate
increase in injury risk in a crash.
Even though the ELRs in affected
vehicles contain a vehicle-sensitive
locking mechanism which slightly
exceeds the FMVSS No. 209 Section
4.3(j)(2)(ii) requirement, for purposes of
evaluation, and to demonstrate a
‘‘worst-case scenario’’, testing was
conducted without reliance on vehiclesensitive ELR operation.
1. Sled (Crash) Tests To Assess Safety
Belt Restraint (Retractor Locking)
Performance: Sled (crash) tests were
conducted with an ELR containing an
FMVSS No. 209 compliant vehiclesensitive locking mechanism and an
ELR in which the vehicle-sensitive
locking mechanism was disabled to
simulate a ‘‘worst-case scenario’’, but
contained a webbing-sensitive locking
mechanism.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 May 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
The belt geometry is representative of
the Land Rover Range Rover and Range
Rover Sport Installation.
The testing focused upon low severity
crashes, because as NHTSA had
discussed in their ruling on the GM
petition,1 ‘‘. . . a webbing-sensitive ELR
mechanism will lock up more quickly in
a severe frontal crash than in a low-tomoderate severity frontal crash.’’ A lowseverity crash represents a ‘‘worst-case
scenario’’ for an ELR equipped with a
non-compliant vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism. In addition, the testing was
conducted using a Hybrid III 5th%
dummy in order to provide a slow
increase in belt loads.
Three acceleration pulses with a low
increase in deceleration and a low
deceleration level were selected from all
pulses pertaining to the affected
vehicles. The selected pulses have an
impact velocity of 15 km/h, and 40 km/
h respectively. The 15 km/h and 32 km/
h pulses represent a full frontal crash,
while the 40 km/h pulse represents an
Offset Deformable Barrier (ODB) crash.
The 15 km/h pulse is a ‘‘no fire’’ pulse
to simulate a crash without safety belt
pre-tensioning.
A total of six tests were conducted,
with two tests being conducted at each
pulse level. Webbing payout and
dummy chest forward displacement
were measured.
The results indicate that there is no
significant difference in restraint
performance (webbing payout, dummy
chest forward displacement) between an
ELR equipped with an FMVSS No. 209
compliant vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism and one that is not
equipped with such a mechanism. The
webbing-sensitive locking mechanism
within the ELR provides comparable
performance to that of an FMVSS No.
209 compliant ELR containing a vehicle
sensitive locking mechanism.
Therefore, in a crash, the webbingsensitive locking mechanism provides
equivalent protection for the driver to
that which would be provided by an
FMVSS No. 209-compliant vehicle
sensitive locking mechanism. It should
be emphasized that the vehicle-sensitive
locking mechanism contained in the
ELR of the affected vehicles slightly
exceeds the FMVSS No. 209 Section
4.3(j)(2)(ii) requirement, whereas testing
was conducted with a disabled vehiclesensitive locking mechanism to simulate
a ‘‘worst-case scenario’’.
It should also be noted that any
performance differences, such as a slight
decrease in dummy chest forward
displacement from an ELR without a
vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism,
1 See
PO 00000
69 FR 1987@1900.
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
are within the normal test to test
variation and are attributed to test
tolerances.
2. Body-In White (BIW) Sled (Crash)
Tests To Assess Injury Risk: Body-InWhite (BIW) sled (crash) tests were
conducted with an ELR containing an
FMVSS No. 209 Section 4.3(i)2(ii)compliant vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism. Further testing was
conducted without reliance on vehiclesensitive ELR operation for comparative
performance purposes (to simulate a
‘‘worst-case scenario’’), but contained a
webbing-sensitive locking mechanism.
Tests were conducted with a Hybrid
III 50th% dummy and a 56 km/h pulse
representing a full-frontal FMVSS No.
208 requirement. The pulse was
selected from an actual pulse of one of
the affected vehicles.
3. Sled (BIW Crash) Test Pulse
(L405—Range Rover): The dummy was
positioned to simulate pre-crash braking
for both test conditions, i.e., the test
using the compliant vehicle-sensitive
locking mechanism ELR, and the test
using the non-compliant vehiclesensitive locking mechanism ELR. Precrash braking positioning was included
to simulate critical real-world crash
conditions, as pre-crash braking occurs
in a significant percentage of crashes.
Pre-crash braking would position the
dummy (in both tests) closer to the
steering wheel prior to impact.
Additionally, pre-crash braking would
assess any effect of additional forward
movement resulting from an ELR in
which the vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism was disabled (to simulate a
‘‘worst-case scenario’’).
For the test with the FMVSS No. 209compliant vehicle-sensitive ELR, the
dummy’s H-point was 40mm more
forward, and the dummy’s Chest CG
was 70mm more forward, than it
otherwise would be in a test which did
not simulate pre-crash braking. For the
test with the FMVSS No. 209 noncompliant vehicle-sensitive ELR, the
dummy’s H-point was 60mm more
forward, and the dummy’s Chest CG
was 90mm more forward than it
otherwise would be in a test which did
not simulate pre-crash braking.
Therefore, for the dummy in which the
non-compliant vehicle-sensitive ELR
was utilized, it was positioned
approximately 20mm more forward as
compared to the dummy in the test in
which the compliant vehicle-sensitive
ELR was utilized.
The value of 20mm was obtained from
conducting simulations representing
pre-crash braking involving a
deceleration over 1.5s peaking at
approximately 1.0g for 1.0sec duration.
Simulations were conducted because
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Notices
the Hybrid III dummy does not have
adequate biofidelity in low-severity
acceleration conditions such as precrash braking. The simulations utilized
the Active THUMS model which has
been well-correlated to actual driving/
braking tests involving human
volunteers. The additional forward
movement of 20mm for the dummy in
which the non-functioning vehiclesensitive ELR was utilized was
consistent across all dummy body
regions (i.e., head, chest, and pelvis).
The restraint system was equipped
with a dual-stage driver airbag and
safety belt pre-tensioners.
The results indicated that while there
were only minor differences in recorded
values between the two tests, the
calculated injury values were well
within the Injury Assessment Reference
Values IARVs for each test outcome for
both an ELR equipped with an FMVSS
No. 209-compliant vehicle-sensitive
locking mechanism and an ELR
equipped with a non-compliant vehiclesensitive locking mechanism.
(c) Rollover Tests To Assess Safety
Belt Restraint (Retractor Locking)
Performance:
1. Quasi-static Rollover Tests—
FMVSS No. 209 Paragraph 4.3(j)(2)(i)(D)
requires that the retractor lock at an
angular rotation greater than 45-degrees.
When tested, JLR has evidence of a part
which did not perform to this standard.
Rollover tests were conducted with an
ELR containing an FMVSS No. 209compliant vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism and an ELR in which the
vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism
was disabled (to simulate a ‘‘worst-case
scenario’’).
To simulate a rollover condition,
quasi-static testing was conducted with
an FMVSS No. 301 test device with a
World-SID dummy being placed in the
driver’s seat of the vehicle mounted on
the test device. Testing was conducted
with an angular rotation range of ±50
degrees around the vehicle’s
longitudinal axis according to SAE 760.
An angular range of ±50 degrees was
used based on analysis of the affected
vehicles during different vehicle level
roll-over events and two key
observations: (1) The time at which the
seat belt retractors were subject to >1g
lateral acceleration (an acceleration at
which the affected ELRs had typically
locked via the CS sensor, particularly
with additional tilt angle applied) and,
(2) the timing of the triggering of belt
pretensioners in such a roll-over event,
leading to locking of the seat belt ELR
via the WS sensor (assuming the CS
sensor had not locked earlier in the
event). Test video of the D-loop (upper
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 May 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
attachment point) and any dummy head
movement was recorded.
For the tests in which the vehicle was
rotated to the right, approximately 5mm
additional webbing pay-out at the upper
seat belt anchorage was observed
between the vehicle-sensitive compliant
and non-compliant ELRs up to a roll
angle of 50 degrees. A difference in
dummy head movement of
approximately 10mm (in the lateral (ydirection)) was observed for the tests
conducted with the vehicle-sensitive
non-compliant ELR.
For the tests in which the vehicle was
rotated to the left, the video did not
depict any difference in dummy head
movement between the vehicle-sensitive
compliant and non-compliant ELRs.
Also, no belt payout was visible at the
D-loop.
2. Dynamic Rollover Tests: In addition
to the quasi-static rollover tests,
available data from actual dynamic
rollover tests of the affected vehicles
was analyzed to understand the
dynamics in such scenarios and the
effect of the vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism in the ELR.
The dynamic rollover tests were based
upon real-world rollover conditions. An
initial acceleration must occur to induce
a rollover and tests were selected based
on the minimum dynamic scenarios that
would result in rollover. The lateral
deceleration of the seat belt retractors in
the rollover events was analyzed to
determine the expected ELR vehiclesensitive sensor locking time based on
the evidence that a non-compliant ELR
would lock by a lateral acceleration of
approximately 1.0g and that the tilt lock
function would lock at <0.7g with an
additional tilt lock angle of 18 degrees.
As the rollover sensing system fitted to
the affected vehicles is configured to
trigger the seat belt retractor
pretensioners, the rollover sensor trigger
times were also established for the
rollover scenarios analyzed to determine
the point at which the seat belt retractor
pretensioner would activate and thereby
achieve ELR belt locking.
From tests conducted with vehiclesensitive locking mechanism noncompliant ELRs, the locking mechanism
locks at approximately 1.0g of lateral
acceleration. Additional testing on the
same non-compliant ELRs has
confirmed that the vehicle-sensitive
locking of such an ELR would lock
below an applied acceleration of 0.7g in
all directions when tilted to an angle of
up to 18° around the vehicle’s
longitudinal axis. Therefore, the results
of the dynamic rollover tests indicate
that the impact-inducing rollovers result
in lateral decelerations in which the
ELR will lock before a rotation of 18
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22185
degrees is reached. Further analysis of
rollover sensor trigger times has
demonstrated that the pretensioners
would trigger before a rollover angle of
45 degrees.
This analysis confirms that locking
will occur before a rotation angle of 45
degrees is reached, as required by
FMVSS 209.
3. Cork-Screw Rollover Simulation
Analysis: For the ‘‘cork-screw’’ rollover
event additional analysis of the
occupant kinematics was made to
establish whether a non-compliant
vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism of
the ELR would have affected any
forward motion of an occupant prior to
ELR lock as previously determined.
An LS-Dyna computer simulation was
made to replicate the ‘‘cork-screw’’
rollover event previously analyzed such
that the occupant positioning could be
determined without the influence of a
locking seat belt ELR. To simulate a
‘‘worst case scenario’’ locking of the seat
belt ELR was completely removed from
the CAE model. The analysis was made
on the ‘‘far side’’ occupant (i.e. the
occupant sat on the opposite side of the
vehicle from that which impacts the test
ramp) as any lateral motion of this
occupant is assumed to be inboard,
away from the seat belt upper
anchorage. The model was set up with
a normally extracting/retracting seat belt
to measure any webbing pay-out due to
dummy kinematics prior to seat belt
ELR lock.
Like the physical test, the simulation
showed a small level of initial occupant
forward head motion on initial vehicleto-ramp contact and the occupant
returned to a normal seating position
prior to the vehicle leaving the ramp or
the seat belt ELR locking during this
dynamic event as previously
determined. No webbing payout of the
seat belt was observed in the simulation,
leading to the conclusion that a seat belt
with non-compliant vehicle-sensitive
locking mechanism would not affect the
occupant kinematics in such a rollover
scenario.
(d) Summary of Test Results: The
FMVSS 209 Section 4.3(j)(2)(i) & (ii)
non-compliant vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism within the ELRs of affected
vehicles shows no significant
performance difference when compared
to a compliant vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism. This finding is obtained
from conducting a number of laboratory
tests representing FMVSS 209 and 208
requirements, as well as other realworld crash conditions. The tests
represent a variety of conditions such as
crashes with, and without, pre-crash
braking, and also other conditions, such
as rollovers.
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
22186
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Notices
Notably, although all tests were
conducted without reliance on a
functioning ELR vehicle sensitive
locking mechanism, affected vehicles do
contain a functionally operable vehiclesensitive locking mechanism which may
slightly exceed the FMVSS 209
Paragraph 4.3(j)(2)(i) & (ii) requirements.
Therefore, as installed in vehicles, the
seat belt would likely perform better
than the non-functioning units utilized
for testing and analysis that form the
basis for this petition.
(e) Owner Contacts to Jaguar Land
Rover Customer Relations: Jaguar Land
Rover Customer Relations has not
received any contacts from vehicle
owners regarding this issue.
(f) Accidents/Injuries: Jaguar Land
Rover is not aware of any accidents or
injuries that have occurred as a result of
this issue.
(g) Prior NHTSA Rulings re
Manufacturer Petitions: NHTSA has
previously granted a petition from
General Motors (GM) on a very similar
issue. [69 FR 19897, Docket No.
NHTSA–2002–12366, Apr 14, 2004].
GM provided test results and analyses
indicating that while there existed a
non-functional vehicle sensitive locking
mechanism within the safety belt
assembly ELR, the webbing sensitive
locking mechanism provided
comparable restraint performance to
that of a fully functional vehicle
sensitive locking mechanism.
In Jaguar Land Rover’s case, the
vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism is
functional, but may slightly exceed the
FMVSS 209 Sections 4.3(j)(2)(i) & (ii)
requirements, and, also contains a
webbing sensitive locking mechanism
which provides comparable
performance to that of a vehicle
sensitive mechanism.
(h) Vehicle Production: Vehicle
production has been corrected to fully
conform to FMVSS 209 Sections
4.3(j)(2)(i) & (ii).
JLR 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.
To view JLR’s petition, test data and
analyses in its entirety you can visit
https://www.regulations.gov by
following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets and by using the
docket ID number for this petition
shown in the heading of this notice.
NHTSA notes that the statutory
provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 May 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
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 JLR 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 JLR 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. 2017–09650 Filed 5–11–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request for Certificate of Foreign
Contracting Party Receiving Federal
Procurement Payments
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The Department of the
Treasury, as part of its continuing effort
to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, invites the general public and
other Federal agencies to take this
opportunity to comment on proposed
and/or continuing information
collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Currently, the IRS is soliciting
comments concerning Certificate of
Foreign Contracting Party Receiving
Federal Procurement Payments.
DATES: Written comments should be
received on or before July 11, 2017 to be
assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
to Laurie E. Brimmer, Internal Revenue
Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or
copies of the form and instructions
should be directed to Martha R. Brinson,
Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526,
1111 Constitution Avenue NW.,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Washington, DC 20224, or through the
Internet at Martha.R.Brinson@irs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Certificate of Foreign
Contracting Party Receiving Federal
Procurement Payments.
OMB Number: 1545–2263.
Form Number: Form W–14.
Abstract: Tax on Certain Foreign
Procurement, Notice of Purposed
Rulemaking, contains proposed
regulations under section 5000C of the
Internal Revenue Code. The proposed
regulations affect U.S. government
acquiring agencies and foreign persons
providing certain goods or services to
the U.S. government pursuant to a
contract. This document also contains
proposed regulations under section
6114, with respect to foreign persons
claiming an exemption from the tax
under an income tax treaty. Section
5000C imposes a 2% tax on foreign
persons (as defined in section
7701(a)(30)), that are parties to specified
Federal procurement contracts with the
U.S. government entered into on and
after January 2, 2011. This tax is
imposed on the gross amount of
specified Federal procurement
payments and is generally collected by
increasing the amount withheld under
chapter 3. A Form W–14 must be
provided to the acquiring agency (U.S.
government department, agency,
independent establishment, or
corporation) to: Establish that they are a
foreign contracting party; and If
applicable, claim an exemption from
withholding based on an international
agreement (such as a tax treaty); or
Claim an exemption from withholding,
in whole or in part, based on an
international procurement agreement or
because goods are produced, or services
are performed in the United States. A
Form W–14 must be provided to the
acquiring agency if a foreign contracting
party has been paid a specified Federal
procurement payment and the foreign
contracting party is seeking to claim an
exemption (in whole or in part) from the
tax imposed by section 5000C. Form W–
14 must be submitted when requested
by the acquiring agency, whether or not
an exemption (in whole or in part) is
claimed from withholding under section
5000C.
Current Actions: There are no changes
being made to the form at this time.
Type of Review: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Affected Public: Federal government.
Estimated Number of Annual
Responses: 2,000.
Estimated Time per Response: 5 hrs.,
55 mins.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 11,840.
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 91 (Friday, May 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22183-22186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09650]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0138; Notice 1]
Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Receipt of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (JLR)on behalf of Jaguar
Land Rover Limited, has determined that certain model year (MY) 2016-
2017 Land Rover Range Rover and Range Rover Sport motor vehicles do not
fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
208, Occupant Crash Protection, and FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt
Assemblies. JLR filed a noncompliance report dated December 2, 2016.
JLR also petitioned NHTSA on December 23, 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 June 12, 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 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: Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (JLR), has
determined that certain model year (MY) 2016-2017 Land Rover Range
Rover and Range Rover Sport motor vehicles do not fully comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection, and FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. JLR filed a
noncompliance report dated December 2, 2016, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. JLR also
petitioned NHTSA on December 23, 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 JLR'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 16,502 MY 2016-2017 Land Rover
Range Rover and MY 2016-2017 Land Rover Range Rover Sport motor
vehicles, manufactured between May 3, 2016, and October 14, 2016, are
potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance: JLR explains that the noncompliance involves
the Emergency Locking Retractor (ELR) in the safety belt assembly of
the vehicle's front left seat. These ELR's are equipped with a vehicle-
sensitive locking mechanism and a webbing-sensitive locking mechanism.
The noncompliance specifically involves the vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism, which does not lock as designed when subjected to the
requirements of paragraph
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 209 states in pertinent
part:
S4.3 Requirements for hardware . . .
(j) Emergency-locking retractor . . .
(2) For seat belt assemblies manufactured on or after February
22, 2007 and for manufacturers opting for early compliance. An
emergency-locking retractor of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt
assembly, when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph S5.2(j)(2) . . .
(ii) Shall lock before the webbing payout exceeds the maximum
limit of 25 mm when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of
0.7 g under the applicable test conditions of S5.2(j)(2)(iii)(A) or
(B). The retractor is determined to be locked when the webbing belt
load tension is at least 35 N.
[[Page 22184]]
Paragraph S7.1.1.3 of FMVSS No. 208 states in pertinent part:
S7.1.1.3 A Type 1 lap belt or the lap belt portion of any Type 2
seat belt assembly installed at any forward-facing outboard
designated seating position of a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight
rating of 10,000 pounds or less to comply with a requirement of this
standard, except walk-in van-type vehicles and school buses, and
except in rear seating positions in law enforcement vehicles, shall
meet the requirements of S7.1 by means of an emergency locking
retractor that conforms to stand No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209) . . .
V. Summary of JLR's Petition: JLR 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, JLR submitted the following reasoning:
(a) ELR Is Voluntarily Equipped with a Webbing Sensitive Locking
Mechanism: The driver's ELR safety belt assembly also contains a
voluntary webbing-sensitive locking mechanism which provides crash
restraint performance comparable to the performance provided by an
FMVSS No. 209 compliant vehicle sensitive mechanism. A description of
the tests that were performed and the results that were obtained which
support this petition are contained in the petition.
The webbing sensitive locking mechanism is designed to lock at
approximately 1.4-2.0g. The webbing-sensitive locking mechanism was
designed to meet the requirements of other non-U.S. markets.
(b) Testing and Analyses: Tests and analyses were conducted to
determine the effect of a non-compliant vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism ELR on safety belt restraint (retractor locking) performance
and any commensurate increase in injury risk in a crash.
Even though the ELRs in affected vehicles contain a vehicle-
sensitive locking mechanism which slightly exceeds the FMVSS No. 209
Section 4.3(j)(2)(ii) requirement, for purposes of evaluation, and to
demonstrate a ``worst-case scenario'', testing was conducted without
reliance on vehicle-sensitive ELR operation.
1. Sled (Crash) Tests To Assess Safety Belt Restraint (Retractor
Locking) Performance: Sled (crash) tests were conducted with an ELR
containing an FMVSS No. 209 compliant vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism and an ELR in which the vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism
was disabled to simulate a ``worst-case scenario'', but contained a
webbing-sensitive locking mechanism.
The belt geometry is representative of the Land Rover Range Rover
and Range Rover Sport Installation.
The testing focused upon low severity crashes, because as NHTSA had
discussed in their ruling on the GM petition,\1\ ``. . . a webbing-
sensitive ELR mechanism will lock up more quickly in a severe frontal
crash than in a low-to-moderate severity frontal crash.'' A low-
severity crash represents a ``worst-case scenario'' for an ELR equipped
with a non-compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism. In addition,
the testing was conducted using a Hybrid III 5th% dummy in order to
provide a slow increase in belt loads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 69 FR 1987@1900.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three acceleration pulses with a low increase in deceleration and a
low deceleration level were selected from all pulses pertaining to the
affected vehicles. The selected pulses have an impact velocity of 15
km/h, and 40 km/h respectively. The 15 km/h and 32 km/h pulses
represent a full frontal crash, while the 40 km/h pulse represents an
Offset Deformable Barrier (ODB) crash. The 15 km/h pulse is a ``no
fire'' pulse to simulate a crash without safety belt pre-tensioning.
A total of six tests were conducted, with two tests being conducted
at each pulse level. Webbing payout and dummy chest forward
displacement were measured.
The results indicate that there is no significant difference in
restraint performance (webbing payout, dummy chest forward
displacement) between an ELR equipped with an FMVSS No. 209 compliant
vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism and one that is not equipped with
such a mechanism. The webbing-sensitive locking mechanism within the
ELR provides comparable performance to that of an FMVSS No. 209
compliant ELR containing a vehicle sensitive locking mechanism.
Therefore, in a crash, the webbing-sensitive locking mechanism
provides equivalent protection for the driver to that which would be
provided by an FMVSS No. 209-compliant vehicle sensitive locking
mechanism. It should be emphasized that the vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism contained in the ELR of the affected vehicles slightly
exceeds the FMVSS No. 209 Section 4.3(j)(2)(ii) requirement, whereas
testing was conducted with a disabled vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism to simulate a ``worst-case scenario''.
It should also be noted that any performance differences, such as a
slight decrease in dummy chest forward displacement from an ELR without
a vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism, are within the normal test to
test variation and are attributed to test tolerances.
2. Body-In White (BIW) Sled (Crash) Tests To Assess Injury Risk:
Body-In-White (BIW) sled (crash) tests were conducted with an ELR
containing an FMVSS No. 209 Section 4.3(i)2(ii)-compliant vehicle-
sensitive locking mechanism. Further testing was conducted without
reliance on vehicle-sensitive ELR operation for comparative performance
purposes (to simulate a ``worst-case scenario''), but contained a
webbing-sensitive locking mechanism.
Tests were conducted with a Hybrid III 50th% dummy and a 56 km/h
pulse representing a full-frontal FMVSS No. 208 requirement. The pulse
was selected from an actual pulse of one of the affected vehicles.
3. Sled (BIW Crash) Test Pulse (L405--Range Rover): The dummy was
positioned to simulate pre-crash braking for both test conditions,
i.e., the test using the compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism
ELR, and the test using the non-compliant vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism ELR. Pre-crash braking positioning was included to simulate
critical real-world crash conditions, as pre-crash braking occurs in a
significant percentage of crashes. Pre-crash braking would position the
dummy (in both tests) closer to the steering wheel prior to impact.
Additionally, pre-crash braking would assess any effect of additional
forward movement resulting from an ELR in which the vehicle-sensitive
locking mechanism was disabled (to simulate a ``worst-case scenario'').
For the test with the FMVSS No. 209-compliant vehicle-sensitive
ELR, the dummy's H-point was 40mm more forward, and the dummy's Chest
CG was 70mm more forward, than it otherwise would be in a test which
did not simulate pre-crash braking. For the test with the FMVSS No. 209
non-compliant vehicle-sensitive ELR, the dummy's H-point was 60mm more
forward, and the dummy's Chest CG was 90mm more forward than it
otherwise would be in a test which did not simulate pre-crash braking.
Therefore, for the dummy in which the non-compliant vehicle-sensitive
ELR was utilized, it was positioned approximately 20mm more forward as
compared to the dummy in the test in which the compliant vehicle-
sensitive ELR was utilized.
The value of 20mm was obtained from conducting simulations
representing pre-crash braking involving a deceleration over 1.5s
peaking at approximately 1.0g for 1.0sec duration. Simulations were
conducted because
[[Page 22185]]
the Hybrid III dummy does not have adequate biofidelity in low-severity
acceleration conditions such as pre-crash braking. The simulations
utilized the Active THUMS model which has been well-correlated to
actual driving/braking tests involving human volunteers. The additional
forward movement of 20mm for the dummy in which the non-functioning
vehicle-sensitive ELR was utilized was consistent across all dummy body
regions (i.e., head, chest, and pelvis).
The restraint system was equipped with a dual-stage driver airbag
and safety belt pre-tensioners.
The results indicated that while there were only minor differences
in recorded values between the two tests, the calculated injury values
were well within the Injury Assessment Reference Values IARVs for each
test outcome for both an ELR equipped with an FMVSS No. 209-compliant
vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism and an ELR equipped with a non-
compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism.
(c) Rollover Tests To Assess Safety Belt Restraint (Retractor
Locking) Performance:
1. Quasi-static Rollover Tests--FMVSS No. 209 Paragraph
4.3(j)(2)(i)(D) requires that the retractor lock at an angular rotation
greater than 45-degrees. When tested, JLR has evidence of a part which
did not perform to this standard.
Rollover tests were conducted with an ELR containing an FMVSS No.
209-compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism and an ELR in which
the vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism was disabled (to simulate a
``worst-case scenario'').
To simulate a rollover condition, quasi-static testing was
conducted with an FMVSS No. 301 test device with a World-SID dummy
being placed in the driver's seat of the vehicle mounted on the test
device. Testing was conducted with an angular rotation range of 50 degrees around the vehicle's longitudinal axis according to
SAE 760. An angular range of 50 degrees was used based on
analysis of the affected vehicles during different vehicle level roll-
over events and two key observations: (1) The time at which the seat
belt retractors were subject to >1g lateral acceleration (an
acceleration at which the affected ELRs had typically locked via the CS
sensor, particularly with additional tilt angle applied) and, (2) the
timing of the triggering of belt pretensioners in such a roll-over
event, leading to locking of the seat belt ELR via the WS sensor
(assuming the CS sensor had not locked earlier in the event). Test
video of the D-loop (upper attachment point) and any dummy head
movement was recorded.
For the tests in which the vehicle was rotated to the right,
approximately 5mm additional webbing pay-out at the upper seat belt
anchorage was observed between the vehicle-sensitive compliant and non-
compliant ELRs up to a roll angle of 50 degrees. A difference in dummy
head movement of approximately 10mm (in the lateral (y-direction)) was
observed for the tests conducted with the vehicle-sensitive non-
compliant ELR.
For the tests in which the vehicle was rotated to the left, the
video did not depict any difference in dummy head movement between the
vehicle-sensitive compliant and non-compliant ELRs. Also, no belt
payout was visible at the D-loop.
2. Dynamic Rollover Tests: In addition to the quasi-static rollover
tests, available data from actual dynamic rollover tests of the
affected vehicles was analyzed to understand the dynamics in such
scenarios and the effect of the vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism in
the ELR.
The dynamic rollover tests were based upon real-world rollover
conditions. An initial acceleration must occur to induce a rollover and
tests were selected based on the minimum dynamic scenarios that would
result in rollover. The lateral deceleration of the seat belt
retractors in the rollover events was analyzed to determine the
expected ELR vehicle-sensitive sensor locking time based on the
evidence that a non-compliant ELR would lock by a lateral acceleration
of approximately 1.0g and that the tilt lock function would lock at
<0.7g with an additional tilt lock angle of 18 degrees. As the rollover
sensing system fitted to the affected vehicles is configured to trigger
the seat belt retractor pretensioners, the rollover sensor trigger
times were also established for the rollover scenarios analyzed to
determine the point at which the seat belt retractor pretensioner would
activate and thereby achieve ELR belt locking.
From tests conducted with vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism non-
compliant ELRs, the locking mechanism locks at approximately 1.0g of
lateral acceleration. Additional testing on the same non-compliant ELRs
has confirmed that the vehicle-sensitive locking of such an ELR would
lock below an applied acceleration of 0.7g in all directions when
tilted to an angle of up to 18[deg] around the vehicle's longitudinal
axis. Therefore, the results of the dynamic rollover tests indicate
that the impact-inducing rollovers result in lateral decelerations in
which the ELR will lock before a rotation of 18 degrees is reached.
Further analysis of rollover sensor trigger times has demonstrated that
the pretensioners would trigger before a rollover angle of 45 degrees.
This analysis confirms that locking will occur before a rotation
angle of 45 degrees is reached, as required by FMVSS 209.
3. Cork-Screw Rollover Simulation Analysis: For the ``cork-screw''
rollover event additional analysis of the occupant kinematics was made
to establish whether a non-compliant vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism of the ELR would have affected any forward motion of an
occupant prior to ELR lock as previously determined.
An LS-Dyna computer simulation was made to replicate the ``cork-
screw'' rollover event previously analyzed such that the occupant
positioning could be determined without the influence of a locking seat
belt ELR. To simulate a ``worst case scenario'' locking of the seat
belt ELR was completely removed from the CAE model. The analysis was
made on the ``far side'' occupant (i.e. the occupant sat on the
opposite side of the vehicle from that which impacts the test ramp) as
any lateral motion of this occupant is assumed to be inboard, away from
the seat belt upper anchorage. The model was set up with a normally
extracting/retracting seat belt to measure any webbing pay-out due to
dummy kinematics prior to seat belt ELR lock.
Like the physical test, the simulation showed a small level of
initial occupant forward head motion on initial vehicle-to-ramp contact
and the occupant returned to a normal seating position prior to the
vehicle leaving the ramp or the seat belt ELR locking during this
dynamic event as previously determined. No webbing payout of the seat
belt was observed in the simulation, leading to the conclusion that a
seat belt with non-compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism would
not affect the occupant kinematics in such a rollover scenario.
(d) Summary of Test Results: The FMVSS 209 Section 4.3(j)(2)(i) &
(ii) non-compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism within the ELRs
of affected vehicles shows no significant performance difference when
compared to a compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism. This
finding is obtained from conducting a number of laboratory tests
representing FMVSS 209 and 208 requirements, as well as other real-
world crash conditions. The tests represent a variety of conditions
such as crashes with, and without, pre-crash braking, and also other
conditions, such as rollovers.
[[Page 22186]]
Notably, although all tests were conducted without reliance on a
functioning ELR vehicle sensitive locking mechanism, affected vehicles
do contain a functionally operable vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism
which may slightly exceed the FMVSS 209 Paragraph 4.3(j)(2)(i) & (ii)
requirements. Therefore, as installed in vehicles, the seat belt would
likely perform better than the non-functioning units utilized for
testing and analysis that form the basis for this petition.
(e) Owner Contacts to Jaguar Land Rover Customer Relations: Jaguar
Land Rover Customer Relations has not received any contacts from
vehicle owners regarding this issue.
(f) Accidents/Injuries: Jaguar Land Rover is not aware of any
accidents or injuries that have occurred as a result of this issue.
(g) Prior NHTSA Rulings re Manufacturer Petitions: NHTSA has
previously granted a petition from General Motors (GM) on a very
similar issue. [69 FR 19897, Docket No. NHTSA-2002-12366, Apr 14,
2004]. GM provided test results and analyses indicating that while
there existed a non-functional vehicle sensitive locking mechanism
within the safety belt assembly ELR, the webbing sensitive locking
mechanism provided comparable restraint performance to that of a fully
functional vehicle sensitive locking mechanism.
In Jaguar Land Rover's case, the vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism is functional, but may slightly exceed the FMVSS 209 Sections
4.3(j)(2)(i) & (ii) requirements, and, also contains a webbing
sensitive locking mechanism which provides comparable performance to
that of a vehicle sensitive mechanism.
(h) Vehicle Production: Vehicle production has been corrected to
fully conform to FMVSS 209 Sections 4.3(j)(2)(i) & (ii).
JLR 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.
To view JLR's petition, test data and analyses in its entirety you
can visit https://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets and by using the docket ID
number for this petition shown in the heading of this notice.
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 JLR 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 JLR
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. 2017-09650 Filed 5-11-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
