Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 60143-60145 [2019-24303]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2019 / Notices
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, and follow the
online instructions for accessing the
dockets, or go to the street address listed
above.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System published in the
Federal Register on January 17, 2008
(73 FR 3316), or you may visit https://
edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdfE8794.pdf.
Public Participation: The Federal
eRulemaking Portal is available 24
hours each day, 365 days each year. You
can obtain electronic submission and
retrieval help and guidelines under the
‘‘help’’ section of the Federal
eRulemaking Portal website. If you want
us to notify you that we received your
comments, please include a selfaddressed, stamped envelope or
postcard, or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting
comments online. Comments received
after the comment closing date will be
included in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Suzanne Rach, Office of Enforcement
and Compliance, Hazardous Materials
Division, Department of Transportation,
FMCSA, West Building 6th Floor, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. Telephone: 202–385–2307; email
suzanne.rach@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: The Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary) is responsible
for implementing regulations to issue
safety permits for transporting certain
HM in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5101
et seq. Currently, the HM Safety Permit
regulations (49 CFR part 385, subpart E)
require companies applying for a HM
Safety Permit that do not have a USDOT
number to file online at the FMCSA
website via the Unified Registration
System (URS) before conducting
operations in commerce that require a
safety permit. Safety permit applications
for companies that have a USDOT
number and applications to update or
renew a safety permit must be filed with
FMCSA using the form MCS–150B
(Combined Motor Carrier Identification
Report and HMSP Application). The
URS and MCS–150B are covered under
the FMCSA’s OMB Control Number
2126–0013, ‘‘Motor Carrier
Identification Report,’’ information
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:55 Nov 06, 2019
Jkt 250001
collection request. The FMCSA requires
companies holding permits to develop a
communications plan that allows for the
periodic tracking of the shipment. This
information collection request covers
the record of communications that
includes the name of the driver,
identification of the vehicle, permitted
material(s) being transported, and the
date, location and time of each contact.
The records may be kept by either the
driver (e.g., recorded in the log book) or
the company. These records must be
kept, either physically or electronically,
for at least six months at the company’s
principal place of business or be readily
available to employees at the company’s
principal place of business.
Title: Hazardous Materials Safety
Permits.
OMB Control Number: 2126–0030.
Type of Request: Revision and
extension of a currently-approved
information collection.
Respondents: Motor carriers subject to
the Hazardous Materials Safety Permit
requirements in 49 CFR part 385,
subpart E.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
987.
Estimated Time per Response: 5
minutes. The communication between
motor carriers and their drivers must
take place at least two times per day,
and at the pickup and delivery of each
permitted load. It is estimated that it
will take 5 minutes to maintain a daily
communication record for each driver.
Expiration Date: August 31, 2020.
Frequency of Response: On occasion.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
692,000 hours [8.3 million trips × 5
minutes per record ÷ 60 minutes per
hour = 691,667 rounded to 692,000]
Public Comments Invited: You are
asked to comment on any aspect of this
information collection, including: (1)
Whether the proposed collection is
necessary for the performance of
FMCSA’s functions; (2) the accuracy of
the estimated burden; (3) ways for
FMCSA to enhance the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the collected
information; and (4) ways that the
burden could be minimized without
reducing the quality of the collected
information. The agency will summarize
or include your comments in the request
for OMB’s clearance of this information
collection.
Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87
on: October 31, 2019.
Kelly Regal,
Associate Administrator for Office of
Research and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2019–24236 Filed 11–6–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
60143
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2019–0064; Notice 1]
Toyota Motor 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 North America,
Inc., (Toyota) has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2013–2019
Lexus motor vehicles do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment. Toyota filed a
noncompliance report dated May 30,
2019. Toyota subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on June 21, 2019, for a decision
that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety. This document
announces receipt of Toyota’s petition.
DATES: The closing date for comments
on the petition is December 9, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written data, views,
and arguments on this petition.
Comments must refer to the docket
number cited in the title of this notice
and may be submitted by any of the
following methods:
• Mail: Send comments by mail
addressed to the 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 the 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 for Federal
Holidays.
• Electronically: Submit comments
electronically by logging onto the
Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website 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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM
07NON1
60144
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2019 / Notices
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 has determined
that certain MY 2013–2019 Lexus motor
vehicles do not fully comply with
paragraph S8.1.11 and Table XVI-a of
FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment (49
CFR 571.108). Toyota filed a
noncompliance report for the motor
vehicles dated May 30, 2019, pursuant
to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports. Toyota subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on June 21, 2019, 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, pursuant
to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and
49 CFR part 556, Exemption for
Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
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 exercises
of judgment concerning the merits of the
petition.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:55 Nov 06, 2019
Jkt 250001
II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately
502,034 of the following MY 2013–2019
Lexus motor vehicles, manufactured
between July 19, 2011, and May 21,
2019, are potentially involved:
• MY 2013–2018 Lexus ES350
• MY 2013–2018 Lexus ES300h
• MY 2013–2019 Lexus GS200t/300/350
• MY 2013–2018 Lexus GS450h
• MY 2016–2019 Lexus GS–F
III. Noncompliance: Toyota explains
that the noncompliance is that the
subject vehicles are equipped with rear
reflectors that do not meet the minimum
photometry requirements specified in
paragraph S8.1.11 and Table XVI-a of
FMVSS No. 108. Specifically, the reflex
reflector in the subject vehicles may
contain a photometry value 18 percent
below the required minimum.
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph
S8.1.11 and Table XVI-a of FMVSS No.
108 includes the requirements relevant
to this petition. Each reflex reflector
must be designed to conform to the
photometry requirements of Table XVIa, when tested according to the
procedure in paragraph S14.2.3 of
FMVSS No. 108, for the reflex reflector
color.
V. Summary of Toyota’s Petition: The
following views and arguments
presented in this section, V. Summary
of Toyota’s petition, are the views and
arguments provided by Toyota. They
have not been evaluated by the agency
and do not reflect the views of the
agency.
Toyota described the subject
noncompliance and stated that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. Toyota
submitted the following views and
arguments in support of the petition:
1. The extent of the noncompliance
for the subject reflex reflectors is such
that the human eye is unable to
differentiate the reflected light of
noncompliant reflectors from the
reflected light of ones that are
compliant.
The technical cause of the
noncompliance is related to the
annealing process at the end of a day
when reflectors were left in the oven as
the oven cooled down. An assessment
was made of the maximum deviation
from the standard that could result from
this circumstance. Based on the 60 piece
parts study using the worst-case
annealing process, Toyota calculated at
4.2 standard deviations from the mean
that no part would deviate below 8.1
percent from the FMVSS standard.
Considering the tolerance interval
calculation method, the worst possible
deviation from the standard would be
¥18 percent.
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The NHTSA sponsored study ‘‘Driver
Perception of Just Noticeable
Differences of Automotive Signal Lamp
Intensities’’ (DOT HS 808 209,
September 1994) and The University of
Michigan Transportation Research
Institute (UMTRI) ‘‘Just Noticeable
Differences for Low-Beam Headlamp
Intensities.’’ (UMTRI–97–4, February
1997) found that a change in luminous
intensity of 25 percent or less is not
noticeable by most drivers. The agency
noted in 1990 when it granted an
inconsequentiality petition filed by
Hella, Inc., ‘‘a reduction of
approximately 25 percent in luminous
intensity is required before the human
eye can detect the difference between
two lamps.’’ See 55 FR 37601, 37602. In
the Subaru petition, the agency stated
that the same considerations can be
applied to reflectors as to lamps.
To verify that a deviation of ¥18
percent is not detectable to the human
eye, Toyota and the supplier conducted
evaluations of the reflected light from
the noncompliant part that was
produced in the 60-piece study and
another reflector that was approximately
20 percent higher in reflectivity. The
reflectors were mounted in a dark
tunnel and set up to simulate the
FMVSS No. 108 test setup at 0.2
degrees. Ten panelists were instructed
to stand at a specific location 100 feet
from the reflectors at a height
approximating at a 0.2-degree angle to
the reflectors. They were asked if the
reflector brightness was the same or
different. After the ten panelists
completed the survey, the same
panelists were asked to repeat the
activity; they were unaware that the
parts and setup had not been changed.
This survey activity was then repeated
using two parts of equal reflectivity. In
these surveys, none of the panelists
were able to identify the noncompliant
part or correctly identify differences in
reflectivity.
In addition, Toyota installed the same
two parts that were checked in the dark
tunnel on a MY 2018 Lexus ES350.
Using the headlamps from another
vehicle that was aligned 100 feet behind
the ES, Toyota members visually
observed the reflectivity between the
two parts at night and were unable to
distinguish a difference between the two
reflectors. They looked the same.
2. There are no known complaints
related to the noncompliance.
Toyota conducted a search of
consumer complaints, field reports,
dealer reports, Vehicle Owner
Questionnaires (VOQs), and legal claims
for the subject vehicles and found no
report alleging that the rear reflectors
could not be seen or were not bright
E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM
07NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2019 / Notices
enough. This search is current as of May
29, 2019.
3. In similar situations, NHTSA has
granted petitions for inconsequential
noncompliance relating to the subject
requirement of FMVSS No. 108.
NHTSA has previously granted at
least two similar petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance, one for
a tail lamp and one for a side reflex
reflector assembly. A brief summary of
the decisions is provided below:
• Hella, 55 FR 37601, (September 12,
1990)
In the petition, Hella argued that
industry experience and supporting
studies have established that the human
eye in the vast majority of cases cannot
detect a change in luminescence unless
it is more than a 25 percent increase or
decrease. NHTSA stated that a reduction
of approximately 25 percent in
luminous intensity is required before
the human eye can detect the difference
between two lamps. Of the
noncompliant lamps tested, the greatest
disparity reported between a compliant
lamp and a noncompliant lamp was 3.6
cd, which is a 20 percent higher
luminous intensity than compliant
lamps. According to the SAE
Recommended Practice J576, this
differential cannot be detected by the
human eye. For this reason, the Hella
petition was granted.
• Subaru, 56 FR 59971, (November 26,
1991)
Subaru submitted a petition for
inconsequential noncompliance in 1991
concerning the failures of luminous
intensity on the side reflex reflector.
NHTSA considered the petitioner’s
statement that observers could not
differentiate between the reflected light
of complying and noncomplying
reflectors at distances of 30m, 60m, and
100m. As the agency noted in 1990
when it granted an inconsequentiality
petition filed by Hella, Inc., ‘‘a
reduction of approximately 25 percent
in luminous intensity is required before
the human eye can detect the difference
between two lamps.’’ See 55 FR 37601,
37602. The agency applied the same
considerations to reflectors as to lamps.
The luminous transmittance failures of
the Subaru reflectors were all less than
20 percent of the minimum values
specified by the standard, and,
therefore, they were undetectable by the
naked eye. For this reason, the petition
was granted.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:55 Nov 06, 2019
Jkt 250001
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).
Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019–24303 Filed 11–6–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2018–0110; Notice 1]
Great Dane, LLC, Receipt of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
AGENCY:
Great Dane, LLC (Great Dane)
has determined that certain model year
(MY) 2019 Great Dane Freedom
Platform trailers do not comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS) No. 223, Rear Impact Guards,
and FMVSS No. 224, Rear Impact
Protection. Great Dane filed a
noncompliance report dated January 2,
2019, and subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on January 2, 2019, for a
decision that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety. This document
announces receipt of Great Dane’s
petition.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
60145
The closing date for comments
on the petition is December 9, 2019.
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 may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
• Mail: Send comments by mail
addressed to the 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 the 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 for Federal
Holidays.
• Electronically: Submit comments
electronically by logging onto the
Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website 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://
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM
07NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 216 (Thursday, November 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60143-60145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24303]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0064; Notice 1]
Toyota Motor 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 North America, Inc., (Toyota) has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2013-2019 Lexus motor vehicles do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Toyota filed a
noncompliance report dated May 30, 2019. Toyota subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on June 21, 2019, for a decision that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document
announces receipt of Toyota's petition.
DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is December 9,
2019.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket number cited in the title of this notice and may be submitted by
any of the following methods:
Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the 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 the 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 for Federal Holidays.
Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website 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
[[Page 60144]]
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 has determined that certain MY 2013-2019 Lexus
motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S8.1.11 and Table
XVI-a of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated
Equipment (49 CFR 571.108). Toyota filed a noncompliance report for the
motor vehicles dated May 30, 2019, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect
and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Toyota subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on June 21, 2019, 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, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR
part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
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 exercises of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 502,034 of the following MY
2013-2019 Lexus motor vehicles, manufactured between July 19, 2011, and
May 21, 2019, are potentially involved:
MY 2013-2018 Lexus ES350
MY 2013-2018 Lexus ES300h
MY 2013-2019 Lexus GS200t/300/350
MY 2013-2018 Lexus GS450h
MY 2016-2019 Lexus GS-F
III. Noncompliance: Toyota explains that the noncompliance is that
the subject vehicles are equipped with rear reflectors that do not meet
the minimum photometry requirements specified in paragraph S8.1.11 and
Table XVI-a of FMVSS No. 108. Specifically, the reflex reflector in the
subject vehicles may contain a photometry value 18 percent below the
required minimum.
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S8.1.11 and Table XVI-a of FMVSS
No. 108 includes the requirements relevant to this petition. Each
reflex reflector must be designed to conform to the photometry
requirements of Table XVI-a, when tested according to the procedure in
paragraph S14.2.3 of FMVSS No. 108, for the reflex reflector color.
V. Summary of Toyota's Petition: The following views and arguments
presented in this section, V. Summary of Toyota's petition, are the
views and arguments provided by Toyota. They have not been evaluated by
the agency and do not reflect the views of the agency.
Toyota described the subject noncompliance and stated that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Toyota submitted the following views and arguments in support of the
petition:
1. The extent of the noncompliance for the subject reflex
reflectors is such that the human eye is unable to differentiate the
reflected light of noncompliant reflectors from the reflected light of
ones that are compliant.
The technical cause of the noncompliance is related to the
annealing process at the end of a day when reflectors were left in the
oven as the oven cooled down. An assessment was made of the maximum
deviation from the standard that could result from this circumstance.
Based on the 60 piece parts study using the worst-case annealing
process, Toyota calculated at 4.2 standard deviations from the mean
that no part would deviate below 8.1 percent from the FMVSS standard.
Considering the tolerance interval calculation method, the worst
possible deviation from the standard would be -18 percent.
The NHTSA sponsored study ``Driver Perception of Just Noticeable
Differences of Automotive Signal Lamp Intensities'' (DOT HS 808 209,
September 1994) and The University of Michigan Transportation Research
Institute (UMTRI) ``Just Noticeable Differences for Low-Beam Headlamp
Intensities.'' (UMTRI-97-4, February 1997) found that a change in
luminous intensity of 25 percent or less is not noticeable by most
drivers. The agency noted in 1990 when it granted an inconsequentiality
petition filed by Hella, Inc., ``a reduction of approximately 25
percent in luminous intensity is required before the human eye can
detect the difference between two lamps.'' See 55 FR 37601, 37602. In
the Subaru petition, the agency stated that the same considerations can
be applied to reflectors as to lamps.
To verify that a deviation of -18 percent is not detectable to the
human eye, Toyota and the supplier conducted evaluations of the
reflected light from the noncompliant part that was produced in the 60-
piece study and another reflector that was approximately 20 percent
higher in reflectivity. The reflectors were mounted in a dark tunnel
and set up to simulate the FMVSS No. 108 test setup at 0.2 degrees. Ten
panelists were instructed to stand at a specific location 100 feet from
the reflectors at a height approximating at a 0.2-degree angle to the
reflectors. They were asked if the reflector brightness was the same or
different. After the ten panelists completed the survey, the same
panelists were asked to repeat the activity; they were unaware that the
parts and setup had not been changed. This survey activity was then
repeated using two parts of equal reflectivity. In these surveys, none
of the panelists were able to identify the noncompliant part or
correctly identify differences in reflectivity.
In addition, Toyota installed the same two parts that were checked
in the dark tunnel on a MY 2018 Lexus ES350. Using the headlamps from
another vehicle that was aligned 100 feet behind the ES, Toyota members
visually observed the reflectivity between the two parts at night and
were unable to distinguish a difference between the two reflectors.
They looked the same.
2. There are no known complaints related to the noncompliance.
Toyota conducted a search of consumer complaints, field reports,
dealer reports, Vehicle Owner Questionnaires (VOQs), and legal claims
for the subject vehicles and found no report alleging that the rear
reflectors could not be seen or were not bright
[[Page 60145]]
enough. This search is current as of May 29, 2019.
3. In similar situations, NHTSA has granted petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance relating to the subject requirement of
FMVSS No. 108.
NHTSA has previously granted at least two similar petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance, one for a tail lamp and one for a side
reflex reflector assembly. A brief summary of the decisions is provided
below:
Hella, 55 FR 37601, (September 12, 1990)
In the petition, Hella argued that industry experience and
supporting studies have established that the human eye in the vast
majority of cases cannot detect a change in luminescence unless it is
more than a 25 percent increase or decrease. NHTSA stated that a
reduction of approximately 25 percent in luminous intensity is required
before the human eye can detect the difference between two lamps. Of
the noncompliant lamps tested, the greatest disparity reported between
a compliant lamp and a noncompliant lamp was 3.6 cd, which is a 20
percent higher luminous intensity than compliant lamps. According to
the SAE Recommended Practice J576, this differential cannot be detected
by the human eye. For this reason, the Hella petition was granted.
Subaru, 56 FR 59971, (November 26, 1991)
Subaru submitted a petition for inconsequential noncompliance in
1991 concerning the failures of luminous intensity on the side reflex
reflector. NHTSA considered the petitioner's statement that observers
could not differentiate between the reflected light of complying and
noncomplying reflectors at distances of 30m, 60m, and 100m. As the
agency noted in 1990 when it granted an inconsequentiality petition
filed by Hella, Inc., ``a reduction of approximately 25 percent in
luminous intensity is required before the human eye can detect the
difference between two lamps.'' See 55 FR 37601, 37602. The agency
applied the same considerations to reflectors as to lamps. The luminous
transmittance failures of the Subaru reflectors were all less than 20
percent of the minimum values specified by the standard, and,
therefore, they were undetectable by the naked eye. For this reason,
the petition was granted.
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).
Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-24303 Filed 11-6-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
