Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Land Rover Range Rover, Land Rover Range Rover Sport
|
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
12 May 2017
[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